Caramico v. Caramico
2015 Ohio 4232
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Wife Brandy Caramico sought a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) against her estranged husband Michael Caramico in Clermont County.
- Wife alleged threats, erratic behavior, and sexual abuse of her daughter; ex parte DVCPO was denied, and a full hearing was scheduled.
- Husband appeared with counsel at Oct. 21, 2014 hearing; case continued due to scheduling until Nov. 14, 2014.
- On Nov. 14, 2014, Husband dismissed his counsel and, after being advised, proceeded without counsel; he then sought a continuance for substitute counsel.
- The magistrate denied the continuance requests; the hearing proceeded with no further evidence introduced by either party.
- Magistrate found Husband engaged in a pattern of conduct constituting domestic violence under R.C. 2903.211(A) (menacing by stalking) and issued a DVCPO; the trial court overruled Husband’s objections, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel in a civil DVCPO | Husband asserts denial of due process by denying counsel. | Civil protection orders have no guaranteed right to counsel; he chose to proceed pro se. | No reversible error; due process not violated; no right to counsel in civil case. |
| Denial of continuances for vacation | Continued hearing needed for vacation; merit to continue. | Court properly denied; vacation not legitimate cause given docket management. | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld. |
| Denial of continuance for substitute counsel | Should allow substitution of counsel for trial. | Failure to timely inform court of substitute counsel warranted denial. | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DVCPO | Husband engaged in acts constituting domestic violence by pattern of conduct. | No qualifying acts; petition should fail. | Evidence supported issuance of DVCPO based on menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Black, 2009-Ohio-92 (12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2008-06-022) (trial court's discretion on continuances; abuse requires unreasonable conduct)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (abuse-of-discretion standard; continuances governed by discretion)
- In re J.T.S., 2015-Ohio-364 (12th Dist. Preble) (trial court docket management and continuance discretion)
- Crawford v. Bandon, 2014-Ohio-3659 (12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-08-150 and CA2013-08-151) (standards for issuing DVCPO; preponderance of the evidence)
- Hyde v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-1701 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-193) (manifest-weight review; credibility determinations)