Kranz v. Kranz
2013 Ohio 1113
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother Janelle Kranz was designated residential parent and legal custodian; Father Scott Kranz had parenting time after their 2007 divorce.
- In 2011 Father sought full custody and requested a guardian ad litem (GAL); GAL Jeffrey Kirby was appointed in August 2011.
- GAL report filed November 3, 2011; Local Rule 4.5(F) required 14 days before final hearing for filing the report.
- November 4, 2011 final hearing proceeded with unresolved GAL timing issues; court scheduled a second hearing to review the GAL and potentially subpoena him.
- Father moved to remove the GAL and for a continuance; magistrate denied both, allowing the November 4 hearing to proceed and theNovember 15 hearing to cross-examine the GAL.
- January 13, 2012 magistrate denied Father’s change-of-custody motion; trial court later overruled objections on April 5, 2012, and remand was ordered for a full hearing on custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process at hearings with GAL timing | Kranz claims due process violation due to late GAL report and absence at key hearings | Kranz’s rights preserved by opportunities to cross-examine and present evidence | Sustained; remanded for full hearing on custody |
| Whether trial court’s denial of custody change was against the weight of the evidence | Kranz asserts best interests support change to residential custody | Mother contends no clear best-interest vacancy for change | Mooted on remand |
| Docket and filing completeness affecting constitutional rights | Kranz argues docket did not properly reflect motions, risking due process | Mother contends filings were properly docketed and heard | Not meritorious; no due process violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Krusling v. Ohio Bd. of Pharmacy, 2012-Ohio-5356 (12th Dist. 2012) (due process and GAL procedures in family cases)
- Reed v. Morgan, 2012-Ohio-2022 (12th Dist. 2012) (due process in evidentiary hearings)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 2012-Ohio-3736 (12th Dist. 2012) (Sup.R. 48 GAL standards and investigation duties)
- Youngstown v. Traylor, 123 Ohio St.3d 132 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (due process notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. Supreme Court 1950) (due process necessity of notice and hearing)
- Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (filing and service certification governs timeliness)
- Reinhold v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 2008-Ohio-1351 (12th Dist. 2008) (courts’ inherent docket control and discretion to deviate from local rules)