GLEN HAYS Plaintiff-Appellant v. MELISSA KAELIN Defendant-Appellee
Appellate Case No. 26179
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
August 1, 2014
2014-Ohio-3357
Trial Court Case No. 2013-UJ-04 (Appeal from Common Pleas Court-Domestic Relations)
MELISSA KAELIN, 2025 Brownsboro Road, Apartment 219, Louisville, Kentucky 40206 Defendant-Appellee-Pro Se
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Glen Hays, appeals from the judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, dismissing his objections to a magistrate’s decision, which found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify Hays’s foreign custody orders, and dismissing his motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} Hays and defendant-appellee, Melissa Kaelin, terminated their marriage on May 29, 2003, in Bullitt County, Kentucky. On August 11, 2003, the Bullitt Family Court ordered a shared custody arrangement for their minor child, L.H. The court designated Hays as the primary residential custodian with whom L.H. would reside during the school year. Kaelin was awarded visitation on alternate weekends and primary physical custody of L.H. during summer vacations. On August 7, 2012, the Bullitt Family Court issued an order permitting Hays to remove L.H. from Kentucky and to enroll him in Ohio’s Mad River School District. Kaelin, however, remained a resident of Kentucky. Additional orders amending visitation and holiday parenting time were issued by the Bullitt Family Court in 2011 and 2012. All parenting issues have been addressed in Bullitt County, Kentucky.
{¶ 3} On April 25, 2013, Hays filed a petition and deposited a fee under
{¶ 4} The foregoing filings were served on Kaelin, and on May 13, 2013, she filed an answer with the trial court contesting the registration of the custody orders. In her answer, she claimed, in part, that Kentucky, not Ohio, was the proper jurisdiction to hear custody matters concerning L.H.
{¶ 5} After Kaelin filed her answer, the trial court continued the July 9, 2013 hearing and held a pretrial conference on August 7, 2013. Following the pretrial conference, the trial court held an October 4, 2013 hearing on Hays’s petition to register and motion to modify the Kentucky custody orders. The issue before the trial court was whether it had jurisdiction over the custody matter. Both parties attended the hearing.
{¶ 6} On November 1, 2013, a magistrate issued a decision dismissing Hays’s motion to modify on grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Kentucky custody orders. Specifically, the magistrate found that Kaelin still resided in Kentucky, that Kentucky had not declined jurisdiction or transferred jurisdiction to Ohio, and that Ohio was an
{¶ 7} On November 8, 2013, Hays filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision, to which Kaelin filed a reply on November 22, 2013. Thereafter, Hays filed supplemental objections on January 21, 2014, and Kaelin again filed a reply on February 10, 2014. After independently reviewing the magistrate’s decision, Hays’s objections, Kaelin’s responses, and the transcript of proceedings, the trial court issued a written decision on March 26, 2014, finding that jurisdiction over the parties’ custody issues remains in Kentucky. As a result, the trial court dismissed Hays’s objections and dismissed his motion to modify the Kentucky custody orders for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court also held that the Kentucky orders would “remain registered pursuant to
{¶ 8} Hays now appeals from the trial court’s March 26, 2014 decision dismissing his objections to the magistrate’s decision and dismissing his motion to reallocate parental rights and responsibilities, raising a single assignment of error for review.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} Hays’s sole assignment of error is as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO REGISTER THE FOREIGN ORDER FOR CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME.
{¶ 11} The registration of foreign custody orders is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA“), which is codified in
{¶ 12} The procedure for registering a foreign custody order is set forth in
- A letter or other document requesting that the child custody determination
be registered; - Two copies, including one certified copy of the determination sought to be registered, and a statement under penalty of perjury that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person seeking registration, the order has not been modified;
- [T]he name and address of the person seeking registration and any parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the child or to have parenting time with respect to the child or any person acting as a parent who has been awarded custody or visitation in the child custody determination sought to be registered;
- An advance deposit or fee established by the court.
{¶ 13} Once the trial court receives the necessary documentation and information, the trial court shall then:
- Cause the child custody determination to be filed as a foreign judgment together with one copy of any accompanying documents and information, regardless of their form;
- Serve notice of the registration request on the persons named pursuant to division (A)(3) of [
R.C. 3127.35 ], and provide them with an opportunity tocontest the registration in accordance with this section.
{¶ 14} A person seeking to contest the validity of a registered order must request a hearing within 30 days after receiving notice of the registration.
- The issuing court did not have jurisdiction under sections
3127.15 to3127.24 of the Revised Code or a similar statute of another state; - The child custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so * * *;
- The person contesting registration was entitled to notice of the child custody proceeding for which registration is sought, but notice was not given * * *.
{¶ 16} In this case, Hays’s assignment of error only touches on the registration of the Kentucky custody orders, as he did not raise any error with respect to the trial court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the orders. Because modification is a separate issue and was not a part of Hays’s appeal, our review of this matter is limited to the issue of registration under
{¶ 17} Here, the record establishes that Hays filed all the documentation and information required for registration under
{¶ 18} Contrary to Hays’s assertion in his appellate brief, we conclude that the trial court registered the custody orders and confirmed the registration. On April 25, 2013, the trial court ordered the Clerk of Court to register the Kentucky custody orders if all the required documentation and information for registration was filed by Hays. Given that all the required documentation and information was filed, we conclude that the Kentucky custody orders were deemed registered via the trial court’s April 25, 2013 order. Following the registration, the trial court held a hearing and the magistrate issued a decision holding, in part, that the Kentucky custody orders would remain registered pursuant to
{¶ 19} Hays’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 20} Having overruled Hays’s sole assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Copies mailed to:
David M. McNamee
Melissa Kaelin
Hon. Timothy D. Wood