Daniels v. Daniels
2021 Ohio 2076
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On Feb. 19, 2020 Julia Daniels (Appellee) filed a domestic-violence petition during divorce/separation, alleging frequent threatening calls/texts, attempted forced entry, and other harassment.
- An ex parte protection order issued the same day; Jefferson Daniels (Appellant) was served and a full hearing occurred Feb. 28, 2020. Both parties testified pro se; no other witnesses or exhibits were presented.
- The magistrate found by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant committed domestic violence and recommended protective orders; the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and entered a five-year Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (DVCPO) the same day.
- Appellant timely filed an appeal but did not file written objections to the court's adoption of the magistrate's recommendation as required by Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d) and (G).
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Civ.R. 65.1(G), holding the objection requirement is mandatory; the court noted the DVCPO form’s printed notice could be misleading but nonetheless held pro se litigants to the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five‑year DVCPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Daniels (Petitioner/Appellee) relied on her testimony to support findings of danger/domestic violence | Daniels (Respondent/Appellant) argued the order was against the manifest weight because Appellee’s testimony was scant, uncorroborated, and credibility was unresolved | Court declined to reach merits and dismissed appeal for failure to file objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G) |
| Whether failure to file timely written objections to the court’s adoption of a magistrate’s DVCPO bars appellate review | Appellee did not contest procedural default; court emphasized the rule’s purpose to create a fuller record | Appellant argued the DVCPO form’s language misled him about the need to file objections | Court held Civ.R. 65.1(G) is mandatory; failure to file objections prior to appeal requires dismissal, though noted the form language was potentially misleading but did not excuse default |
Key Cases Cited
- Florenz v. Omalley, 158 N.E.3d 1009 (2d Dist.) (criticized DVCPO form language that could imply objections are optional and held courts must avoid providing incomplete or misleading notice about Civ.R. 65.1 objection requirements)