The Franklin County Juvenile Court can still consider a mother’s request for visitation time with her son while the Franklin County Probate Court considers a pending petition to adopt the child, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion , the Supreme Court rejected the claim that once an adoption proceeding is pending in probate court, a juvenile court loses its jurisdiction to consider visitation requests by a biological parent.

The great-great-uncle and great-great-aunt of a boy born in 2016, identified in court records as “Z.B.,” have had co-legal custody of the child since 2018. The couple, identified as “T.B. and A.B.,” filed a petition to adopt Z.B. in probate court in 2019, and proceedings have been ongoing since. Z.B.’s mother, identified as “K.T.,” has sought to continue visitation of her son while he remains in the custody of T.B. and A.B.

T.B. and A.B. filed a complaint in the Supreme Court to prohibit a Franklin County Juvenile Court judge from scheduling a hearing to consider K.T.’s motion seeking visitation time with her Z.B. The juvenile judge directed his magistrate to conduct the hearing .

Infant Placed in Care of Relatives
Z.B. was born in 2016. A few months later, the National Youth Advocate Program filed a complaint in juvenile court alleging that Z.B. had tested positive at birth for various illicit substances, including cocaine, opiates, and marijuana. The complaint asked the juvenile court to determine that Z.B. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child.

The juvenile court agreed and made Z.B. a ward of the court. The court granted temporary custody to K.T.’s great-grandmother, Z.B.’s great-great-grandmother. The great-great-grandmother received legal custody of Z.B. in October 2017, when Z.B. was just over a year old. Just before Z.B. turned 2, the juvenile court awarded co-legal custody to the great-great-grandmother, and T.B. and A.B.

In 2019, T.B. and A.B. filed a petition in probate court to adopt Z.B. K.T. opposed the adoption. While the adoption was pending, K.T. filed a motion in juvenile court seeking visitation time with Z.B., who was residing with T.B. and A.B.

In March 2022, a juvenile court magistrate ordered biweekly supervised visitation between K.T. and Z.B., who was 5 at the time. The visitation was maintained and increased in December 2022.

In May 2023, the probate court denied the adoption petition. T.B. and A.B. appealed the decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which, in 2024, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the probate court for further proceedings.

In September 2024, the juvenile court stayed its proceedings, including consideration of K.T.’s motion for visitation,  until the probate court ruled on the adoption request that had been returned to the probate court.

In March 2025, with the adoption still pending in probate court, the juvenile court lifted the stay and scheduled the magistrate to hear K.T.’s request for visitation. When reinstating the visitation motion hearing, the juvenile judge indicated that both the probate court and juvenile court have jurisdiction over Z.B., and the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction to address visitation issues.

Supreme Court Reviewed Judge’s Authority
T.B. and A.B. sought to block the juvenile court from considering K.T.’s visitation motion. They argued the juvenile court has no jurisdiction to act on K.T.’s request because the adoption petition is pending in probate court.

The per curiam opinion noted the Supreme Court has recognized that a juvenile court and a probate court may sometimes exercise jurisdiction over different matters relating to the same child. The opinion stated that under R.C. 2151.353(A), a juvenile court generally retains continuing jurisdiction over a child that it declared abused, neglected, or dependent until the child turns 18, or until the child is adopted and a final decree of adoption is issued.  This jurisdiction includes the authority to consider issues of visitation because a juvenile court may review child custody and placement arrangements and can require a child’s parent, guardian, or custodian to take any action or discontinue any action the court determines is necessary or in the best interest of the child.

The Court explained that the probate court, on the other hand, has exclusive jurisdiction over adoption proceedings, which extends to “preadoption placement.” When a probate court has ordered preadoption placement under R.C. 5103.16(D), the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court supersedes the continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

The Court rejected T.B. and A.B.’s argument that filing the adoption petition necessarily bars the juvenile court from considering issues pertaining to the same child. In doing so, it distinguished this case from the Court’s 2023 decision in State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy. In Davis, the probate court had ordered preadoption placement for a child, and the threatened action of the juvenile court would have “necessarily interfere[d]” with the probate court’s order. In Z.B.’s case,  the preadoption placement provisions of R.C. 5103.16(E) did not apply because T.B. and A.B., the proposed adoptive parents, were already the legal custodians of Z.B.

“Thus,” the Court concluded, “the probate court in this case did not issue a preadoption-placement order, and the juvenile court’s resolution of K.T.’s visitation motion would therefore not conflict with any existing order of the probate court.”

2024-0361. State ex rel. T.B. v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4484.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.