2019 Ohio 1637
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Tamar and Dale Hartman divorced in May 2017; the decree incorporated an agreed parenting plan naming Tamar residential parent and legal custodian of two minor children.
- The parenting plan required use of court case-management services, a parenting coordinator (Dr. Bohn), and the Our Family Wizard (OFW) communication platform; it set visitation and conduct rules.
- The court scheduled an administrative review to assess compliance with case-management services; docket entries show a December 2017 notice and a scheduled attorney conference, but no clear record of hearings occurring.
- On May 1, 2018 the trial court issued a journal entry adding 15 specific obligations to the parenting plan (daily OFW use, notification timing for schedule changes, doctor-appointment notices, phone-call rules, therapy communications, cost sharing, etc.).
- Dale appealed pro se, arguing the May 1 order was void because there was no justiciable controversy and he was denied due process (no motion, no adequate notice, no hearing).
- The appellate court reversed and vacated the May 1, 2018 order, concluding the record does not show Dale received notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and therefore his due-process rights were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the May 1, 2018 order unlawfully modify parental rights requiring R.C. 3109.04 procedures? | Hartman (Tamar) argued the order did not change residential parent/legal custodian and therefore was not a custody modification under R.C. 3109.04. | Hartman (Dale) argued the order materially changed parenting time and other obligations, so R.C. 3109.04 applied and the court lacked jurisdiction without statutorily required findings. | Court: The order did not change designation of residential parent/legal custodian, so R.C. 3109.04 did not apply; changes were substantive visitation modifications governed by R.C. 3109.051. |
| Was R.C. 3109.051 and Civ.R. 75(J) procedure followed to invoke continuing jurisdiction? | Tamar asserted the court was exercising continuing jurisdiction to address parenting disputes via administrative review and case-management reports. | Dale argued no formal motion, no proper invocation under Civ.R.75(J), and no record of a hearing or opportunity to be heard. | Court: The record is silent as to any motion or hearing; it is questionable whether continuing-jurisdiction procedures were properly invoked. |
| Was Dale afforded due process (adequate notice and opportunity to be heard) before the court entered the modifications? | Tamar/ counsel contended the parties did appear on April 30 and the court considered the matters (but record lacks confirmation). | Dale argued he received no notice that the court would modify the parenting plan and had no opportunity to oppose the changes. | Court: Reversed — record does not show adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard; due-process violation required vacatur of the May 1 order. |
| Should the appellate court evaluate the merits of the added visitation terms? | Tamar noted some modifications favored Dale and were in children’s best interests. | Dale conceded some terms were favorable but maintained process defects required reversal. | Court: Declined to reach merits; reversed on procedural/due-process grounds and vacated the order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanna v. Hanna, 177 Ohio App.3d 233 (Ohio App. 2008) (statutory nature of divorce and ancillary custody actions)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1999) (distinguishing custody allocation from visitation)
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 3109.04 applies when designation of residential parent/legal custodian is modified)
- In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 1992) (trial court retains continuing jurisdiction over custody, care, and support)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1986) (due process requires reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of proceedings)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1965) (reaffirming notice and opportunity to be heard as fundamental due-process requirements)
- Corbett v. Corbett, 123 Ohio St. 76 (Ohio 1929) (principle that court which enters divorce decree retains continuing jurisdiction)