In re Marriage of Stafford
2016 Ohio 7921
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties dissolved marriage in 2009 with an agreed shared parenting plan for their child born 2000; court adopted the agreement.
- In June 2015 Mother moved to modify the shared parenting plan, alleging changed circumstances and that Father had moved to Florida.
- Multiple continuances were requested and granted earlier; the magistrate ordered both parties to appear in person for trial and warned under Local Rule 8.01 about nonappearance.
- Trial before the magistrate occurred January 14, 2016; Father did not appear in person or by phone, though his counsel attended and orally moved for a continuance that was denied.
- Magistrate recommended, and the trial court ultimately entered, an order naming Mother sole residential parent and directing child support; Father appealed only as to the denial of the day-of trial continuance and his counsel’s representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying counsel’s oral day-of-trial continuance was an abuse of discretion | Denial abused discretion because Father’s counsel requested continuance and Father believed counsel’s presence excused his personal attendance | Court relied on prior magistrate order requiring Father’s in-person attendance, multiple prior continuances, Father’s lack of availability by phone, and docket control | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; court properly balanced docket control and prejudice and proceeded |
| Whether trial counsel’s alleged failure to notify Father of the trial rendered counsel ineffective | Counsel neglected to timely inform Father of the trial, prejudicing him | No constitutional right to effective counsel in civil custody modification; record shows Father and counsel were served and Father failed to appear despite orders | Claim rejected; remedy for civil attorney negligence is malpractice, and record did not show counsel’s neglect |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (discretionary standard for continuance; balancing test factors)
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (right to effective assistance applies to criminal proceedings; standard for ineffective-assistance claims)