In Re Extradition Of Adam

63 Ohio App.3d 638 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Adams (D) was the mother of Russell. Paternity was acknowledged by Young, the father, and legal custody of Russell was shared by both parents. D then informed Young that she was going to move from California to Ohio and take Russell with her. A new custody hearing was instituted and D was granted full legal custody with Young granted specified visitation. D refused to permit ordered visitation and was eventually served with a motion for contempt. D did not attend the contempt hearing but was found in contempt, and the court ordered a change of custody from D to Young. D then retained counsel in Ohio to enforce the California orders, and the Ohio court found that the California court had properly exercised jurisdiction. That determination was appealed, and it was determined that the California order was unenforceable due to lack of notice to D for the contempt hearing in California. D did give custody of Russell to Young. The California courts then issued an arrest warrant for D for violation of California Penal Code 278.5. The governor of Ohio then issued a warrant for the arrest of Adams. D filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and that petition was denied; it was determined that D was not present in California but her act was intentional and resulted in a crime in California and as such she could be extradited under an exception in Ohio law (section 2963.03 of the Revised Code).