Denier v. Carnes-Denier
2017 Ohio 334
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2014; mother was named residential parent. Father sought reunification and shared parenting for three children.
- Magistrate issued a July 2015 decision recommending shared parenting; mother filed objections and appealed after the trial court adopted the decision.
- The trial court entered interim 28-day orders implementing magistrate decisions (with automatic 28-day renewals) while objections and appeals were pending.
- Subsequent motions (by father and the GAL) alleged the mother was alienating the children; magistrate held review hearings in Dec. 2015 (continued in progress) and recommended further changes, including primary placement of the youngest child with father.
- Mother sought continuances and to remove the GAL; the magistrate denied the continuance (but continued the hearing in progress) and denied removal of the GAL. Mother appealed, arguing denial of due process and procedural error in proceeding while an appeal was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Denier/Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Carnes-Denier/Father & court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated due process by holding modification hearings and changing parenting while mother’s objections/appeal to July 2015 magistrate decision were pending | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed and should not modify orders while appeal pending; proceeding caused uncertainty and deprived mother of meaningful defense | Civ.R.75(H) allows trial court to hear motions to modify parental rights during appeal; interim order was in effect and mother had notice and opportunity to be heard | Court rejected due-process claim; trial court had authority under Civ.R.75(H) to modify parenting rights during appeal and no plain error shown |
| Whether use of automatically renewing 28‑day interim orders violated Civ.R.53 and mother’s due process | Interim orders improperly auto-renewed without showing good cause, depriving mother of timely review | Trial court’s use of interim orders was permissible to effectuate magistrate recommendations; any error in automatic renewal did not prejudice mother because challenged rulings were nonfinal or not appealed | Court agreed automatic renewal without showing good cause is not permitted by rule but found no plain error or prejudice to mother |
| Whether denial of continuance violated mother’s right to fair hearing where subpoenaed documents were not produced before first hearing date | Denial prevented adequate preparation and meaningful presentation of evidence | Mother had notice, subpoena was issued late, Franklin County moved to quash, court conducted in camera review and later provided redacted documents; hearing was continued in progress to later dates | Court found no abuse of discretion in denying continuance; no prejudice shown and due process satisfied |
| Whether the court erred in using interim orders to delay appellate review/remove mother’s rights | Interim orders used to evade timely appellate review and changed custodial status without final order | Orders were interim under Civ.R.53 and subject to Civ.R.75(H); mother had remedies and the nonfinal matters (continuance, GAL removal) were not appealable final orders | Court found no reversible error; judgments affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parents’ fundamental liberty interest in child-rearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents’ custody interests are constitutionally protected)
- Gable v. Gates Mills, 103 Ohio St.3d 449 (civil plain-error doctrine limited to exceptional circumstances)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (framework for plain-error review in civil cases)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (plain-error involves obvious and prejudicial errors affecting public confidence)
- Unger v. Sarchet, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (factors for evaluating motions for continuance/abuse of discretion review)
- Venable v. Venable, 3 Ohio App.3d 421 (order denying continuance is not a final appealable order)