2024 Ohio 74
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- M.D.B. (Father) and C.T.M. (Mother) are the parents of twin boys, G.C.B. and A.A.B.
- The case is an appeal from a juvenile court order following a June 13, 2023 evidentiary hearing regarding child support, parenting time, and modification of a shared parenting plan.
- At issue were Father’s motions to adopt or terminate an administrative child support order, objections to the assignment of a visiting/retired judge, and a change of venue; and Mother's motions regarding interference with parenting time and modification of the parenting plan.
- Father objected to the jurisdiction and authority of the retired judge, claimed a lack of due process, filed multiple unsuccessful disqualification affidavits, did not participate in evidence submission, and filed no transcript on appeal.
- The trial court found Mother demonstrated a change of circumstances warranting modification of the plan, denied Father's motions for failure to prosecute, maintained the existing child support order, held Father in contempt for interfering with parenting time, and set a subsequent sanctions hearing.
- Father appealed, claiming Fifth Amendment and due process violations based on venue and procedural arguments; no appellee brief or transcript was provided on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge Qualification & Jurisdiction | Retired judge lacked Father's consent; no jurisdiction | Judge had proper authority | Court and Ohio Supreme Court found judge qualified |
| Due Process and Fair Trial | Denied due process; not heard; unfair trial | Complied with court orders, appeared, testified | Court found no denial of due process; due opportunity provided |
| Change of Circumstances/Modification | Opposed modification; failed to participate | Showed change, Father uncooperative | Court found circumstances changed; modified plan |
| Administrative Order/Support | Sought adoption or termination of support order | Sought to keep order in effect | Court maintained existing support order |
Key Cases Cited
- Bikkani v. Lee, 2008-Ohio-3130 (8th Dist.) (pro se litigants held to same standard as others)
- Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357 (pro se parties responsible for own procedural compliance)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (without transcript, appellate court presumes regularity and affirms)
- State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162 (burden on appellant to show error in the record)