2018 Ohio 1898
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother and Father, never married, share one child; a 2009 shared parenting plan was later modified and ultimately terminated with Mother awarded sole custody in 2015.
- Father was criminally indicted and then convicted in 2015 of intimidation (felony) and related misdemeanors, and incarcerated for 18 months.
- While Father was incarcerated, Mother filed (1) an ex parte motion to suspend Father’s parenting time and (2) a Notice of Intent to Relocate to Florida based on a nursing job and family support there.
- A magistrate (June 13, 2016) recommended suspension of Father’s parenting time during his incarceration; later (July 27, 2016) the magistrate recommended allowing Mother and the child to relocate and ordered Mother’s address sealed due to safety concerns.
- The trial court overruled Father’s objections and adopted both magistrate decisions; Father appealed, raising three assignments of error challenging continuances, counsel failures, suspension of parenting time and related procedural protections.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denial of continuances, in not granting a continuance for counsel’s absence, in suspending parenting time without an oral hearing, in declining an in-camera child interview, in sealing Mother’s address, and in permitting relocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuances for April and July 2016 hearings | Finality and scheduling warranted proceeding; hearings set with notice | Denial violated due process because Father was incarcerated and lacked counsel/contact | Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion; April denial waived for failure to object; July denial justified (school scheduling and Father contributed to delay). |
| Denial of continuance despite attorney no-shows / failure to withdraw | Scheduling afforded time to secure new counsel; no absolute right to counsel in domestic relations | Trial court abused discretion by not continuing when counsel failed to appear | Court: No abuse of discretion; no constitutional right to counsel in civil domestic relations and Father had opportunity to obtain new counsel. |
| Suspension of parenting time without oral hearing | Suspension appropriate given incarceration and safety/ practicality concerns of prison visitation | Suspension without oral hearing violated procedural rights | Court: Suspension proper; magistrate considered statutory best-interest factors and suspension within discretion. |
| Refusal to conduct in-camera child interview; sealing address; permitting relocation | In-camera interview discretionary in visitation matters; sealing justified by safety affidavit; relocation in child's best interest (job, family support, school inquiry) | Father argued court should have interviewed child, not seal address, and deny relocation | Court: In-camera interview not required under R.C. 3109.051; sealing proper under safety statute; relocation permitted after best-interest review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (broad discretion to grant/deny continuance)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (review of continuance denials under abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (factors for evaluating continuance requests)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (distinguishing allocation-of-parental-rights statutes from visitation statutes)
- Mancino v. Lakewood, 36 Ohio App.3d 219 (no absolute due process right for incarcerated civil litigant to attend a civil trial)