2020 Ohio 4508
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Parents divorced in California (2006); one son born January 25, 2004.
- Mother moved to Ohio in 2016 with the child; parties agreed to reunification counseling to repair father–son relationship.
- Mother later relocated the child to Florida pursuant to an agreed entry so the child could attend a private school/tennis academy; father was ordered to arrange reunification counseling but had difficulty securing a therapist.
- Father filed multiple motions (including to compel counseling, to share expenses, and for sanctions); magistrate ultimately vacated the reunification-counseling requirement and limited parenting time (monthly in-person visit in Florida with 14-day notice; twice-weekly video calls).
- Father filed untimely objections and did not provide a transcript of the October 9, 2019 hearing; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and the appellate court affirmed, holding objections were waived except for plain error and that no plain error occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Mallikarjunaiah (plaintiff) argument | Shankar (defendant) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in canceling reunification counseling | Counseling unnecessary; child does not want a relationship and therapists indicated counseling would be ineffective | Cancellation contrary to child’s best interest; parties had agreed to counseling and it should continue | Court affirmed cancellation; father’s objections were untimely and waived except for plain error; no plain error found |
| Whether mother violated California order re: sharing reunification costs / whether costs should be apportioned | Mother pays child’s tuition and imposing more expenses would be disproportionate; father waived prior opportunity to request costs | Mother should share travel and counseling costs per prior order | Motion to share expenses denied; trial court’s denial affirmed as not plain error and father waived timely objection |
| Whether quashing subpoena to Mr. Kramer was improper | Quashing justified on procedural/record grounds and lack of demonstrated need | Subpoena should have been permitted; testimony relevant | Appellate court found father’s objection untimely and record incomplete (no transcript), so no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (discusses Civ.R. 53 objection requirements and limits review to plain error when objections are untimely)