Hurst v. Hurst, 2013 Ohio 2674

Divorce decree (Aug. 11, 2009) awarded Mother sole custody and granted Appellant no parenting time initially.
Mother filed Sept. 13, 2011 notice of intent to relocate with the children; Civil Protection Order on file restricting address disclosure.
Appellant filed pro se motions (Jan. 19, 2012) to modify parenting time and for contempt; hearing set for Apr. 12, 2012.
Magistrate denied both motions on May 10, 2012; objections filed May 14, 2012; trial court later overruled due to lack of transcript.
Appellant pursued appeal pro se; the trial court and appellate court emphasized lack of transcript and procedural conformity.
Appellate court affirmed the magistrate’s decision to deny visitation and contempt, and rejected all assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate properly denied visitation	Hurst argues the evidence supports visitation with restrictions.	Hurst contends the court abused its discretion in denying time with the children.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Harmlessness of the challenged hearsay statement	Hurst challenges admission of a statement about nude showering.	Mother’s testimony should be excluded as improper hearsay; harmless error.	Harmless error; not reversible.
Contempt—whether Mother violated the divorce decree	Mother removed jointly owned property, violating the decree’s terms.	Interpretation of jointly owned property was reasonable; no contempt.	No clear and convincing showings of contempt; not established.
Constitutional rights to parent and equal protection	Magistrate violated Appellant’s parental rights and equal protection.	No constitutional violation; state may act in best interests of the child.	No violation; R.C. 3109.051 and Troxel framework support the ruling.
Bias of the magistrate	Magistrate biased against Hurst.	No demonstrated bias; proper procedures followed; no reversible error.	No abuse of discretion; no bias shown.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to child welfare)
In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights subject to welfare of the child)
In re B.L., 2002-Ohio-1156 (Ohio) (statutory best-interests framework applicable)
State v. White, 15 Ohio St.2d 146 (1968) (credibility and evidentiary considerations in trial court)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard; credibility and discretion)
State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 (1968) (preservation and harmless error considerations in appeals)
State v. Hooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 83 (2001) (limits on enlarging the record with new matter on appeal)