Blair v. Adkins
2021 Ohio 2292
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Appellant Anthony B. Adkins, incarcerated at London Correctional Institution with an expected release in 2038, sought a reduction of his child support obligation to $0; the Fayette County CSEA filed a motion on his behalf to reduce support.
- A juvenile-court hearing occurred on Sept. 23, 2020; Adkins received notice but did not request to appear by phone or video from prison.
- The juvenile court found it inappropriate to impute income to an incarcerated obligor, noted prison wage withholding was occurring, but concluded reducing support to $0 would not be in the child’s best interest and ordered the statutory minimum of $80/month.
- Adkins appealed, advancing two claims: (1) procedural due process violation based on alleged judicial bias by Judge David B. Bender (who had signed warrants in Adkins’s unrelated criminal case); and (2) abuse of discretion in refusing to reduce support to $0.
- The appellate court affirmed: (1) Adkins failed to follow statutory procedures to seek disqualification and the record showed no evidence of bias depriving him of a fair proceeding; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in finding $80/month, rather than $0, served the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge’s prior role (signing warrants) created procedural due process violation/judicial bias | Adkins: Judge Bender’s signing of warrants in his criminal case shows bias and conflict, denying a fair hearing | CSEA/juvenile court: Adkins never sought recusal or filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03; bias claims against common-pleas judges must proceed via the Ohio Supreme Court; record shows no denial of participation | Overruled — no procedural due process violation; statutory disqualification route not used; judicial rulings/warrants alone insufficient to show bias (proceeding fair) |
| Whether juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering $80/mo instead of $0 | Adkins: Incarceration and financial hardship justify reducing the minimum support to $0 | CSEA/juvenile court: Child support intended to benefit the child; court found $0 not in child’s best interest; court complied with statutes and exercised discretion | Overruled — no abuse of discretion; $80/month order reasonable and not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings and ordinary remarks ordinarily do not establish disqualifying bias)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (standard of review in child-support matters)
- Dunbar v. Dunbar, 68 Ohio St.3d 369 (1994) (trial court discretion in family-support determinations)
- State v. Blankenship, 115 Ohio App.3d 512 (12th Dist. 1996) (appellate courts lack authority to decide judge disqualification)
- In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio St.3d 29 (2019) (R.C. 3119.06 permits reduction of minimum support to zero in appropriate circumstances)