2015 Ohio 3730
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Ronald Basista (father) and Marijana Glass (mother) share an adult daughter, Nicole, who is a ward of the probate court and has Noonan’s Syndrome.
- In an earlier appeal (Basista I), the probate court — after an in-camera interview with Nicole and appointment of an independent GAL — denied Ronald’s motion to establish visitation because Nicole expressed she did not want to visit her father; the Eleventh District affirmed.
- Ronald later filed a new motion to establish visitation, citing new facts: an affidavit from a police officer in which Nicole said she “misses” her father at a public event, and Nicole’s relocation to Texas with Glass. He also sought appointment of a guardian ad litem and a psychological exam.
- The probate court dismissed the new motion, relying on the Eleventh District’s prior decision and treating it as law of the case, and denied the GAL request without holding a hearing.
- Ronald appealed; the Eleventh District reversed and remanded, holding the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar reconsideration because the evidentiary posture had changed and the probate court should have discretion to investigate changed circumstances (including holding a hearing) before denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior appellate decision is binding under the law-of-the-case doctrine | Basista: doctrine inapplicable because new evidence shows Nicole’s wishes changed | Glass: same affidavit and relocation were previously presented; prior decision controls | Court: law of the case does not apply because the subsequent proceedings present a different evidentiary record showing changed circumstances; trial court erred applying the doctrine |
| Whether probate court erred by denying visitation motion without investigating Nicole’s current wishes | Basista: court should investigate changed evidence (officer affidavit, move to Texas) and may need a hearing to determine best interest | Glass: Nicole previously expressed refusal; no cognizable parental right to visitation with an adult ward | Court: probate court should have discretion to consider whether Nicole’s wishes changed and to hold a hearing; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether trial court erred denying appointment of guardian ad litem | Basista: GAL needed to investigate Nicole’s current wishes and capacity | Glass: GAL unnecessary given prior findings and prior proceedings | Court: Moot at this stage; GAL issue may be considered on remand if court exercises discretion to hold further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine and when it applies)