Loewen v. Newsome, 2012 Ohio 566

Mother Patricia Newsome and Father Eduard Loewen are the parents of a minor child born September 9, 2004; the child initially lived with Mother for the first two years.
Father filed to establish a parent-child relationship in 2005, later dismissed, and refiled November 26, 2006; by March 24, 2009 the trial court granted Father companionship time.
The child has behavioral problems and ADHD; Mother was concerned about addressing the child’s special needs and the Father’s ability to facilitate visitation.
On August 11, 2009, a magistrate held a hearing on allocation of parental rights; Mother appeared pro se after a request for counsel was denied; Father was represented.
The first day centered on Father’s witnesses; Mother’s request to call witnesses was noted but her witnesses would testify after Father’s; the second day saw uneven time allocation and termination of proceedings mid-session.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hearing violated due process	Newsome argues she was denied a fair opportunity to present her case and to cross-examine.	Loewen argues the magistrate can manage proceedings and limit testimony to efficient time.	Mother’s due process rights were violated; reversal and remand for a new hearing.

In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental custody involves essential civil rights requiring protections)
In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (custody decisions require significant protections of due process)
In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (6th Dist.1991) (parents must have procedural protections in custody hearings)
In re T.H., 192 Ohio App.3d 201 (2011-Ohio-248) (reversed custody due to unfair restriction of a parent's case)
State ex rel. Butler v. Demis, 66 Ohio St.2d 123 (1981) (trial courts must promote fair and orderly hearings consistent with due process)