Sturkie v. Auxier
2025 Ohio 2399
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2025Background
- This case involves a custody and parenting time dispute between Alex Sturkie (Father, custodial parent) and Amanda Auxier (Mother, non-custodial parent) regarding visitation with their minor children.
- An "Agreed Judgment Entry" (May 31, 2024) initially permitted Mother two supervised visits, after which she could have unsupervised visits barring further court order.
- Father's counsel died in June 2024; new counsel (Patterson) appeared in July 2024.
- Attorney Patterson later moved for all visits to be supervised, which the juvenile court granted on October 21, 2024; Mother did not appeal this decision.
- At a subsequent review hearing (November 19, 2024), neither Father nor his attorney were present, and the court rescinded the supervised visitation order, reverting to unsupervised visitation for Mother.
- Father moved to vacate, arguing lack of notice to his new counsel; the motion was denied, and Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sturkie) | Defendant's Argument (Auxier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by finding all parties were duly served for the November 2024 hearing | Proper notice not given to new counsel after predecessor's death; thus, not "duly notified" | Did not brief on appeal | Court found constructive notice (docket entry) sufficient under Ohio law; no error |
| Whether the court erred by reinstating unsupervised visitation without findings/notice | No motion, no advance notice, and no best interest finding were made before changing visitation | Did not brief on appeal | Court agreed; order lacked indication of best interest analysis, vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (constructive notice—court docket entry—generally sufficient)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (visitation modifications require best-interest analysis under R.C. 3109.051(A))
- Ries Flooring Co. v. Dileno Constr. Co., 53 Ohio App.2d 255 (counsel must keep apprised of court activities; constructive notice sufficient)
- Metcalf v. Ohio State Univ. Hosp., 2 Ohio App.3d 166 (similar rule on notice and counsel responsibility)