In re: The Marriage of Stafford
2016 Ohio 7921
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced by dissolution in 2009 with an agreed shared parenting plan for their child born 2000.
- In June 2015 Mother moved to modify the shared parenting plan, alleging changed circumstances and that Father had moved to Florida.
- Trial was repeatedly continued at Father’s request (three continuances granted). Magistrate issued a September 3, 2015 order requiring both parties to appear in person at trial and warned about nonappearance rules.
- January 14, 2016 trial before the magistrate proceeded; Father did not appear in person or by phone though his counsel attended and orally requested a continuance that day; the magistrate denied the request.
- Magistrate recommended, and the trial court later adopted, naming Mother sole residential parent and ordering child support; Father appealed only arguing the continuance denial and his counsel’s representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of counsel’s oral continuance request was an abuse of discretion | Father: denial was improper because his counsel requested continuance and Father had retained counsel | Trial court/Mother: court properly controlled docket; Father had been ordered to appear in person and had previously received continuances | Court affirmed denial—no abuse of discretion given prior orders, multiple prior continuances, and Father’s nonappearance |
| Whether Father received ineffective assistance of counsel in civil modification proceeding | Father: counsel neglected to timely notify him of the January 14 trial date | Mother: no constitutional right to effective counsel in civil matters; any malpractice remedy is separate; record shows Father was served with orders and magistrate ordered personal attendance | Court rejected ineffective-assistance claim—no constitutional claim in civil case and record does not show counsel was neglectful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (continuance decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion using a balancing test)
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (Ohio 1925) (defines "abuse of discretion" as judgment not comporting with reason or the record)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel applies in criminal cases; different standard in civil matters)