Ruiz v. Musa, 2022 Ohio 1720

2014 divorce decree set a shared parenting plan for the parties’ two minor children.
Musa moved to terminate the shared parenting plan (motion filed Sept. 17, 2019); Ruiz filed motions to change parenting time and parental rights (July 2019) and an amended modification (April 2020).
The court held a hearing by Zoom on January 6, 2021; the court had ordered exhibits pre-marked and exchanged (48 hours to opposing counsel, 24 hours to the court) and required separation of witnesses.
At the hearing there was initial confusion about receipt of Ruiz’s exhibits; Ruiz introduced Exhibit G and used F and O during cross-examination but otherwise did not tender other listed exhibits; three listed witnesses (including the GAL) testified and were cross-examined.
On July 20, 2021 the trial court granted Musa’s motion, terminated the shared parenting plan, and named Musa sole residential parent and legal custodian; Ruiz appealed claiming (1) Zoom procedures deprived her due process as to exhibits, (2) Zoom procedures deprived her due process as to witnesses, and (3) the GAL report was inadmissible hearsay.
The appellate court affirmed, finding no denial of opportunity to present evidence or to cross-examine and holding the GAL report was properly considered because the GAL testified and the court did not rely exclusively on hearsay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did conducting the trial by Zoom deprive Ruiz of due process by preventing her from offering exhibits?	Ruiz: Zoom procedures created uncertainty about offering exhibits and she was unable to admit exhibits she listed.	Musa: Court provided instructions; opposing counsel and GAL received exhibits; Ruiz failed to proffer or offer exhibits for admission.	No error — court provided procedures; Ruiz chose not to proffer most exhibits and only Exhibit G was admitted.
Did Zoom procedures deprive Ruiz of due process by preventing her from calling witnesses?	Ruiz: Confusion about calling witnesses led her not to call witnesses she intended to call.	Musa: All listed witnesses testified and were cross-examined; GAL was called by Musa.	No error — listed witnesses (including GAL and defendant) testified and were cross-examined by Ruiz.
Was the GAL’s written report inadmissible hearsay and thus improperly considered?	Ruiz: GAL report contains hearsay and needed a hearsay exception to be admissible.	Musa: Investigator/GAL reports may be considered where the investigator is available for cross-examination and the court does not rely exclusively on hearsay.	No error — GAL testified and was cross-examined; the court did not base its decision solely on hearsay in the report.

In re Hua, 62 Ohio St.2d 227 (Ohio 1980) (parties must have full opportunity to present evidence, confront witnesses, and make argument).
Degrant v. Degrant, 151 N.E.3d 61 (11th Dist. 2020) (court-appointed investigator/GAL reports may be considered if investigator is available for cross-examination and report is not exclusively relied upon).
In re Sherman, 162 Ohio App.3d 73 (3d Dist. 2005) (on reconsideration recognizing courts may consider investigator reports despite hearsay when the investigator testifies).