In re J.D.
2017 Ohio 1081
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father (Weisal) filed a petition to establish parentage and for parenting time for child J.D.; mother (Doty) filed for continuance and requested DNA testing within a pro se motion tied to seeking child support.
- Multiple continuances occurred; mother missed the April 13, 2016 magistrate hearing (arrived late/left due to illness) and the court proceeded in her absence.
- Father testified at the hearing that he and mother had been in a relationship, the child was born from that relationship, he purchased items for the child, and he sought standard Option 1 parenting time every other weekend at his parents’ home.
- Magistrate adjudicated Weisal the father based on his admission and awarded Option 1 parenting time at paternal grandparents’ home; mother filed objections and appealed.
- Trial court overruled objections; appellate court reviewed whether parentage could be adjudicated without DNA testing and whether parenting time was in child’s best interest, affirming the lower court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doty) | Defendant's Argument (Weisal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in adjudicating parentage without ordering DNA testing | Doty argued she requested DNA testing in her motion and court should have ordered it before adjudicating parentage | Weisal argued he admitted paternity in his petition and testified at hearing; mother’s request in a continuance motion did not preserve an automatic right to testing | Court held adjudication on father’s admission and testimony satisfied burden by preponderance; no plain error in not ordering DNA testing |
| Whether father’s testimony was sufficient to establish paternity by preponderance | Doty contended testimony alone was insufficient and weight of evidence did not support paternity | Weisal relied on his admission and testimony that child resulted from their relationship; no contradictory evidence presented | Court held testimony/admission constituted competent, credible evidence supporting parentage by preponderance of evidence |
| Whether Option 1 parenting time was contrary to child’s best interests | Doty argued unsupervised weekend visits would harm child; requested supervised/gradual transition and contended court failed to consider relevant best-interest factors | Weisal argued he sought standard Option 1 visitation and presented evidence he was prevented from visiting by mother; parenting time location and schedule were reasonable | Court held parenting-time determination was within discretion, mother waived many objections by not presenting evidence at hearing or providing transcript; court presumed factors considered absent contrary evidence |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not taking additional evidence after mother’s objections | Doty argued she submitted affidavits and post-hearing allegations showing harm, so court should have limited visitation or taken further evidence | Weisal argued mother failed to present allegations at hearing, did not request additional hearing or supply transcript, so trial court properly declined further fact-finding | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion; mother failed to show diligence or preserve evidence for magistrate and did not properly invoke Juv.R. 40(D)(4) procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight of evidence in civil cases)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best positioned to judge witness credibility)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (Ohio 1997) (civil plain-error doctrine applied narrowly)
- Appleby v. Appleby, 492 N.E.2d 831 (Ohio 1986) (broad discretion in visitation orders)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio 1997) (credibility determinations fall to fact-finder)