C.M.R. v. B.T.B.S.
217 N.E.3d 859
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On August 4, 2022 C.M.R. obtained an ex parte domestic-violence civil protection order against his 19‑year‑old stepson, B.T.B.S.; a full hearing was set within seven days and B.T.B.S. was personally served on August 5.
- At the August 11 full hearing, C.M.R. appeared with counsel; B.T.B.S. appeared pro se and repeatedly requested a continuance to obtain counsel, saying he had contacted multiple attorneys in the days after service.
- The magistrate denied the continuance solely because C.M.R. objected, then conducted settlement discussions that produced a written consent agreement and a three‑year protection order signed by the parties, counsel, the magistrate, and the judge.
- B.T.B.S. appealed, arguing the magistrate’s denial of a continuance to obtain counsel violated R.C. 3113.31(D)(2)(a)(iii) and his due‑process rights and pressured him into a consent decree restricting contact with his half‑sister.
- The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the Unger factors and by treating petitioner’s objection as dispositive; R.C. 3113.31(D)(2)(a)(iii) authorizes continuances to obtain counsel regardless of the petitioner’s consent.
- Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings; costs taxed to appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying respondent's request for a continuance to obtain counsel before the full DV‑CPO hearing | C.M.R. argued the hearing should proceed and that her objection justified denial of a continuance | B.T.B.S. argued he had attempted to retain counsel, asked for a continuance under R.C. 3113.31(D)(2)(a)(iii), and was prejudiced by being forced to proceed pro se | Court reversed: denial was an abuse of discretion because the magistrate failed to apply Unger factors and wrongly treated petitioner’s objection as controlling; a continuance to obtain counsel may be granted regardless of petitioner’s consent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (sets factors for evaluating continuance requests and due‑process review)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (no mechanical tests for continuance denials; reason depends on case circumstances)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Sowders, 4 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1983) (denial of continuance can implicate right to counsel/due process)