Sassya v. Morgan, 2019 Ohio 1301

Parents divorced in 2013; mother (Morgan) was residential parent of three younger children, father (Sassya) of two older sons. Parenting-and-companionship orders were entered.
From 2016–2017, father filed multiple motions alleging mother willfully denied his court-ordered parenting time and alienated the younger children; contempt and reallocation/custody motions followed. A custody evaluator (Dr. Harvey Kayne) and a guardian ad litem were appointed.
A multi-day hearing occurred: father presented evidence on June 9, 2017 (mother left and did not participate that day); mother testified on June 29, 2017 and the GAL testified; in-camera interviews of the children also were conducted.
The magistrate found a change of circumstances (mother willfully denied substantial parenting time), concluded modification served the children’s best interests, and ordered father designated residential parent and legal custodian; exchanges ordered at a specific public parking lot with no exiting vehicles.
Mother objected, raising due-process complaints (lack of notice, inability to testify fully, denial of calling a child witness) and argued her refusals were protective due to alleged abuse; the trial court overruled objections and confirmed the magistrate. Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sassya)	Defendant's Argument (Morgan)	Held
1) Proceeding on June 9 without mother present	Court could proceed on custody after father dismissed contempt; evidence presented supported reallocation	She lacked notice/preparedness and therefore was denied due process	No due-process violation; docket and prior orders provided reasonable notice; mother voluntarily left and later testified on June 29
2) Order specifying exchange location (Giant Eagle)	Exchange location is appropriate and limits direct contact; facilitates safe transitions	Violates Mahoning County protection order; exchanges should be at police dept.	No abuse of discretion; no evidence father threatened during exchanges and order minimized contact
3) Magistrate questioned witness / limited narrative testimony	Court’s questioning assisted a pro se defendant and ensured relevant record	Judicial questioning and rulings prevented her narrative and denied due process	Permissible under Evid. R. 614(B); magistrate explained procedure, obtained consent, and allowed supplementation
4) Excluding minor child as witness	Father and court relied on in-camera interviews and expert report; allowing child to testify could harm child	She should be permitted to call her 12-year-old to testify to events she witnessed	Trial court has discretion to limit child testimony; mother agreed child shouldn’t be called and failed to proffer the child’s testimony; no reversible error

Baxter v. Baxter, 27 Ohio St.2d 168 (1971) (appellate review of custody uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (failure to timely object waives appellate review)
Hochhausler, 76 Ohio St.3d 455 (1996) (due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (2007) (Ohio constitutional due-process analysis is equivalent to federal)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (deference to trial court credibility findings)