State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Court of Common Pleas
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Adoption Link, Inc. v. Suver (Ohio 2006)
- Davis v. Wilson (Ohio 2003)
- State ex rel. C v. v. Adoption Link, Inc. (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2019)
- In re Volk (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- In re Bailey (Ohio 2003)
- State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Auglaize Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1999)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Bruggeman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, Bruggeman’s assertion is meritless.
In order to prevail on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a child custody case, the petitioner must establish that (1) the child is being unlawfully detained, and (2) the petitioner has the superior legal right to custody of the child. Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 128, 130, 684 N.E.2d 1217, 1219.
Here, Bruggeman did not allege any superior legal right to custody of the child. Further, from his own petition, it is evident that an award of custody to Bruggeman, an incarcerated, convicted child abuser, would not be in the best interests of his child. Id., 80 Ohio St.3d at 131, 684 N.E.2d at 1219-1220; see,
In addition, Bruggeman did not name his former wife, who has custody of their child, as a respondent in his habeas corpus petition. See R.C. 2725.04(A) and (B).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.