2022 Ohio 2552
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Ricardo Dodson, an inmate convicted of rape and related offenses, alleges he was wrongly identified as the biological father of a child (A.M.) conceived during the offense; he denies paternity.
- In 1992 FCCSEA initiated administrative paternity proceedings (later dismissed), and Dodson sought records from those proceedings in 2021 which FCCSEA refused to produce in unredacted form.
- OAPA/ODRC repeatedly considered victim statements (that Dodson fathered A.M.) at multiple parole hearings (2009–2018, 2021) and denied parole based on multiple aggravating factors, including but not limited to the alleged paternity.
- Dodson sued in this court seeking (1) a writ of prohibition to bar ODRC/OAPA from adjudicating paternity at parole hearings, and (2) a writ of mandamus ordering DNA testing, appointment of counsel at parole hearings, and production of unredacted FCCSEA records.
- The magistrate granted respondents’ motions to dismiss; the appellate court independently reviewed the record, adopted the magistrate’s findings and conclusions, overruled relator’s objections, and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCCSEA must produce complete, unredacted 1992 paternity records | Dodson: he has a right to the records under R.C. 3125.15/3125.16 and Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-1-20.1 | FCCSEA: statutes apply to obligors/obligees or specify disclosure limits; no duty to produce unredacted files to Dodson | Held: Dodson is not an obligor/obligee and identified no rule requiring disclosure; mandamus denied and claim dismissed |
| Whether respondents must order DNA testing for use at parole hearings | Dodson: statutory and case law (R.C. 3111.09/3111.10; Anderson) entitle him to genetic testing to resolve paternity | Respondents: those statutes apply to actions under R.C. chapter 3111 in court proceedings; no duty on parole board or FCCSEA to order DNA for parole | Held: Statutes cited are inapplicable here; no clear legal duty to order DNA testing for parole; mandamus denied |
| Whether respondents must appoint counsel at parole hearings addressing parentage | Dodson: R.C. 2151.352/2151.23 and Cody require counsel appointment in parentage-related proceedings | Respondents: those juvenile/parentage protections apply to juvenile courts or court parentage actions, not parole hearings; Cody is distinguishable | Held: No statutory or constitutional duty to appoint counsel in parole proceedings for this issue; mandamus denied |
| Whether ODRC/OAPA exceeded jurisdiction or unlawfully adjudicated paternity (prohibition) | Dodson: parole board effectively adjudicated paternity and denied parole based on that adjudication in violation of juvenile/court-exclusive jurisdiction | Respondents: consideration of victim statements in parole decision is authorized by parole rules; such consideration does not create legal parent-child relationship or supplant juvenile/court jurisdiction | Held: No unauthorized exercise of quasi-judicial power; parole consideration of victim statements is permissible and not a paternity adjudication; prohibition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (sets three-part mandamus test)
- State ex rel. Roush v. Montgomery, 156 Ohio St.3d 351 (2019) (standards for writ of prohibition)
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998) (prohibition restrains inferior tribunals from exceeding jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. McKee v. Cooper, 40 Ohio St.2d 65 (1974) (parole hearings are quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Anderson v. Jacobs, 68 Ohio St.2d 67 (1981) (DNA testing in paternity proceedings context)
- State ex rel. Cody v. Toner, 8 Ohio St.3d 22 (1983) (counsel concerns in parentage proceedings)
- State ex rel. Turner v. Houk, 112 Ohio St.3d 561 (2007) (12(B)(6) dismissal standard for original writ actions)
- State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580 (1996) (judicial notice on Civ.R. 12(B)(6) without converting to summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Sartini v. Yost, 96 Ohio St.3d 37 (2002) (prohibition can correct results of unauthorized jurisdiction)