The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled against Christopher P. Seelbaugh in his attempt to use a writ of prohibition to challenge decisions made in his divorce and child support cases. The court affirmed the Second District Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss Seelbaugh’s action.
The Core of the Dispute
Seelbaugh, acting as his own lawyer (pro se), had appealed to the court, aiming to overturn a magistrate’s decision that found him in contempt for not following a child support order and a decision by the Montgomery County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) that found him in default on his child support payments. He sought a writ of prohibition, a legal tool used to prevent a court or government entity from acting beyond its authority.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on several key points:
1. The Domestic Relations Court as a Respondent: The court of common pleas, including its domestic relations division, is not a separate legal entity that can be sued. Because Seelbaugh named the domestic relations court as a respondent, the court correctly dismissed the action against it.
2. Lack of Jurisdiction Arguments: Seelbaugh argued the domestic relations court lacked jurisdiction due to his use of a trust to hold his assets. He claimed that the probate court should have exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected this, viewing it as a “sovereign-citizen” argument. The court stated that a person cannot avoid a court’s authority by using a trust. The court also affirmed that the domestic relations court had proper subject-matter jurisdiction over divorce and child support matters.
3. Due Process Claims: Seelbaugh argued that his due process rights were violated due to the alleged improper contractual arrangements between the domestic relations court and the CSEA. The court found that these claims did not affect the jurisdiction of either the domestic relations court or the CSEA.
4. Adequate Remedies at Law: The court emphasized that Seelbaugh had access to other legal avenues to challenge the CSEA’s finding of default and the magistrate’s contempt order. He could have requested an administrative hearing and a court hearing regarding the CSEA’s decision. Regarding the magistrate’s decision, he could have filed objections and appealed the court’s final decision. The court stated that these remedies were adequate, regardless of whether Seelbaugh received a favorable outcome.
5. Failure to Comply with Local Rules: Finally, the court noted that Seelbaugh failed to comply with the Second District Court of Appeals’ local rules regarding security deposits or affidavits of indigency.
The court’s decision affirms that the lower court correctly dismissed Seelbaugh’s case.