Whitesed v. Huddleston
2021 Ohio 2400
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Parents Allie J. Whitesed and Jonathan R. Huddleston disputed allocation of parental rights for child A.J.W.; Whitesed filed the custody complaint (no abuse/neglect allegations).
- Case proceeded through multiple pretrials (telephonic/video); repeated discovery noncompliance, missed hearings, delayed psychological evaluation, and alleged interference with parenting time by Whitesed.
- Multiple hearing notices were entered on the docket and served to counsel; Whitesed’s counsel repeatedly moved to withdraw and communicated with Whitesed about upcoming dates.
- On Nov. 2, 2020 Whitesed did not appear at the custody trial; her attorney appeared, orally moved to withdraw, and the magistrate granted withdrawal. The hearing proceeded ex parte with Huddleston presenting evidence.
- Magistrate awarded residential parent and legal custody to Huddleston; trial court overruled Whitesed’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Whitesed appealed raising three errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court was required to appoint a guardian ad litem under Juv.R. 4(B)(5) | Whitesed: Juv.R. 4(B)(5) mandated appointment because filings and concerns (psych eval, emergency motion) alleged threats to child’s wellbeing. | Huddleston: No abuse/neglect/dependency allegations in initial pleadings or amended filings; Juv.R. 4(B)(5) not triggered. | Court: No error. Rule applies to cases alleging abuse/neglect/dependency; none here. Appointment not required; R.C. 3109.04 procedures likewise not triggered. |
| Whether magistrate and trial court erred by allowing Whitesed’s attorney to withdraw the morning of trial | Whitesed: Late withdrawal prejudiced her and trial should not have proceeded after counsel left. | Huddleston: Whitesed repeatedly failed to cooperate, missed hearings, impeded counsel; attorney withdrawal was justified and Whitesed voluntarily chose not to appear. | Court: No abuse of discretion. Attorney withdrawal was supported by client’s conduct; Whitesed effectively abandoned participation and waived objections. |
| Whether Whitesed had constitutionally sufficient notice of the trial (due process) | Whitesed: She claimed she did not receive notice of the Nov. 2 hearing and therefore was deprived of due process. | Huddleston: Multiple docket entries and service to counsel provided constructive and actual notice; counsel informed Whitesed. | Court: No due-process violation. Docket entries and service to counsel (who informed client) provided constitutionally sufficient notice; trial could proceed ex parte. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.G.B., 878 N.E.2d 49 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (discussion of juvenile-rule applicability and guardian ad litem issues)
- In re Spradlin, 747 N.E.2d 877 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard where juvenile rule applicability contested)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 502 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio 1986) (entry of trial date on court docket constitutes constructive notice)
- Matter of C.B., 161 N.E.3d 770 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) (notice to parent's attorney can establish constructive notice for due-process purposes)
- Eichenlaub v. Eichenlaub, 120 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (abuse of discretion defined in appellate review)
- In re H.W., 868 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio 2007) (application of Civ.R. rules to juvenile custody proceedings)