Daugherty v. Daugherty
2012 Ohio 1520
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Jeffrey Daugherty appeals a domestic violence civil protection order issued for Lucinda Daugherty and their minor son.
- The trial court granted Ms. Daugherty a protection order; it did not decide on a separate child-protection order at that time.
- Guardian ad litem was appointed; visitation between Jeffrey and the son was supervised pending final hearing.
- On August 26, 2011, the court tentatively found the son not a protected person and purported to certify custody/visitation to juvenile court.
- The juvenile court consent to certification was not documented in the record; the son’s petition remained pending, and the August entry was a nullity after notice of appeal.
- The court concluded it had jurisdiction to review the Ms. Daugherty protection order, but dismissed challenges related to the son’s petition and related custody/visitation rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order granting protection to Ms. Daugherty is final/appealable | Daugherty argues the order’s scope and finality were improper | Daugherty argues the order is final under R.C. 3113.31(G) | The order granting protection to Ms. Daugherty is final and appealable under R.C. 3113.31(G) |
| Whether the son’s protection-order petition was properly subject to appellate review | Daugherty contends the son’s petition remained pending and not final | Ms. Daugherty argues the petition’s status is controlled by juvenile-court certification | Appeal jurisdiction over the son’s petition is lacking because certification was not shown by the juvenile court record |
| Whether the ex parte order for Ms. Daugherty was moot given the final order | Ex parte order should be reviewable despite final order | Final order supersedes ex parte order; mootness applies | Ex parte-order challenges are moot and overruled |
| Whether Daugherty waived due process/notice objections to the final protection order | Daugherty asserts lack of opportunity to be heard and cross-examine | Daugherty invited the error by not objecting and by consenting to parts of the order | Invited-error and waiver apply; objections waived; due-process claims rejected |
| Whether the trial court’s custody/visitation rulings were properly reviewed given the juvenile-court certification issue | Custody/visitation determinations should be reviewed | Certification to juvenile court controls reviewability | Because certification issue controls, certain custody/visitation errors are not reviewable here; other aspects are dismissed or affirmed as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Eddie v. Saunders, 2008-Ohio-4755 (Ohio appellate 2008) (jurisdictional review of final orders)
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (finality and Civ.R. 54(B) considerations)
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (1989) (finality when not all claims are resolved)
- Sullivan v. Anderson Twp., 2009-Ohio-1971 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (Civ.R. 54(B) certification and finality guidance)
- State v. Scheutzman, 2008-Ohio-6096 (Ohio Appellate 2008) (notice of appeal affects trial-court jurisdiction after interlocutory actions)
- In re S.J., 2005-Ohio-3215 (Ohio Supreme Court 2005) (impact of notice of appeal on trial-court proceedings)
- State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2011-Ohio-626 (Ohio Supreme Court 2011) (per curiam on appellate supervision of proceedings)
- State v. J.L.R., 2009-Ohio-5812 (Ohio Appellate 2009) (ex parte order vs. final order mootness analogy)