Case Title: State ex rel. Brown v. Lemmerman

Citation: 2010-Ohio-137

Docket Number: 20090948

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Brown v. Lemmerman, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-137.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-137 
THE STATE EX REL. BROWN v. LEMMERMAN, SUPT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Brown v. Lemmerman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-137.] 
Public schools — Mandamus to compel release of pupil records to nonresidential 
parent — R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a). 
(No. 2009-0948 — Submitted December 16, 2009 — Decided January 26, 2010.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an action for a writ of mandamus to compel a school 
district superintendent to provide copies of school records relating to certain 
children.  Because relator has met his burden under the statute, we grant the writ. 
Facts 
Requests for School Records 
{¶ 2} Relator, Frank C. Brown Jr., is currently serving a 15-year prison 
term.  Respondent, Cynthia A. Lemmerman, is the superintendent of Fostoria 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Community Schools.  In September 2006, in his first records request, Brown 
requested that the superintendent provide him with copies of all school records 
relating to the following five children:  Whitney Lynn Marie Boone, Frank 
Christopher Brown IV, Caleb Michael Brown, Garrett Neal Brown, and Alicia 
Kay Elaine Brown.  Brown claimed that they are his children.  A few days later, 
Lemmerman responded to Brown’s request by providing him with all records held 
by the school district board of education relating to Whitney Lynn Marie Boone 
and Frank Christopher Brown IV from the date of their enrollment until their 
withdrawal from Fostoria Community Schools in 1997.  Lemmerman also advised 
Brown that no records existed for the remaining three children and that Frank 
Christopher Brown IV and Caleb, Garrett, and Alicia Brown were enrolled in the 
Lakota School District. 
{¶ 3} Brown then requested records related to the open enrollment of the 
children in the Lakota School District and contact information for that school 
district, and Lemmerman provided him with the requested records and 
information. 
{¶ 4} Sometime after Brown’s 2006 records requests were made, Frank 
Christopher Brown IV, Caleb Michael Brown, Garrett Neal Brown, and Alicia 
Kay Elaine Brown became enrolled in Fostoria Community Schools.  The school 
district’s records were conflicting as to whether Brown was the father of the 
children.  For example, a copy of the birth certificate for Frank Christopher 
Brown IV named Frank C. Brown III as his father instead of relator – Frank C. 
Brown Jr.  Caleb’s permanent record named Mark Collins as his father, and some 
records relating to Garrett and Alicia indicated that their father’s name was simply 
Frank Brown. 
{¶ 5} In July 2008, Brown made a third request, i.e., that Lemmerman 
provide him with copies of school records relating to Frank Christopher Brown IV 
and Caleb, Garrett, and Alicia Brown.  Brown claimed that he was requesting 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
these records pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 
(“FERPA”), Section 1232g, Title 20, U.S.Code, and R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a) and 
3109.05(H)(1).1  But this time, Lemmerman did not respond to Brown’s request, 
because she felt that her duty to do so was unclear, given the conflicting evidence 
concerning his paternity of the children. 
{¶ 6} Brown then sent a letter reiterating his records request and 
threatening Lemmerman by stating, “I suggest you speak to Lakota 
Superintendent, Rebecca Heimlich and see what I will do.  Please do not make me 
involve the U.S. Dept. of Educ.  I will expect all records held by this district in 
one week.”  The school district requested that Brown cease his correspondence.  
The prison ordered Brown to stop corresponding with or contacting the school 
district. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 7} In May 2009, Brown filed this action for a writ of mandamus to 
compel Lemmerman to provide him with copies of the requested records relating 
to Frank Christopher Brown IV, Caleb Michael Brown, Garrett Neal Brown, and 
Alicia Kay Elaine Brown.  Brown claimed entitlement to the writ based on R.C. 
3319.321(B)(5)(a), the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 
and the equal protection and due process provisions of Sections 2 and 16, Article I 
of the Ohio Constitution.  After Lemmerman filed an answer, we granted an 
alternative writ.  122 Ohio St.3d 1500, 2009-Ohio-4233, 912 N.E.2d 106.  The 
parties submitted evidence and briefs. 
{¶ 8} This cause is now before us for consideration of the merits. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 9} Brown claims entitlement to a writ of mandamus to compel the 
superintendent to provide copies to him of the school records of four children.  To 
                                                 
1.  No such subsection exists. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
be entitled to the writ, Brown must establish a clear legal right to the requested 
records, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Lemmerman to provide 
them, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
Turner v. Eberlin, 117 Ohio St.3d 381, 2008-Ohio-1117, 884 N.E.2d 39, ¶ 6.  In 
his complaint, Brown cited R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a) as well as federal and state 
constitutional provisions to support his mandamus claim. 
{¶ 10} R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a) provides: 
{¶ 11} “A parent of a student who is not the student’s residential parent, 
upon request, shall be permitted access to any records or information concerning 
the student under the same terms and conditions under which access to the records 
or information is available to the residential parent of that student * * *.” 
{¶ 12} This statute does not confer any rights on nonparents to public 
school records of children.  At the time the superintendent refused relator’s 
requests for these records, she may not have erred, because she was unsure then 
whether relator was a parent of the children.  Now, however, given relator’s 
affidavit and additional documentation, this court holds that relator has now 
sufficiently met his burden under R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a) so as to be entitled to a 
writ compelling the production of these records.  “[I]n mandamus actions, a court 
is not limited to considering the facts and circumstances at the time a proceeding 
is instituted but should consider the facts and conditions at the time it determines 
whether to issue a peremptory writ.”  State ex rel. Portage Lakes Edn. Assn., 
OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 95 Ohio St.3d 533, 2002-Ohio-2839, 769 
N.E.2d 853, ¶ 54. 
{¶ 13} Relator has submitted copies of court entries naming him as the 
father of the four children in question.  Prior to his 2003 incarceration, relator was 
designated as the emergency temporary residential parent and legal custodian of 
Christopher, Caleb, Garrett, and Alicia on September 19, 2001, in an order 
correctly stating his name as Frank C. Brown Jr.  After a hearing, the trial court 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
found that relator and the mother of the children were the parents of the four 
children in question and reaffirmed its prior designation of relator as the 
temporary residential parent of the four children. 
{¶ 14} Therefore, notwithstanding the inconsistencies in the form of 
relator’s name as it appears in various documents in this case, we hold that relator 
has presented sufficient evidence in his affidavit and attached records to establish 
that he has met his burden under the statute in question.  Accordingly, we hold 
that Brown has established a clear legal right to the requested records and the 
superintendent has a clear legal duty to give copies of the requested records to 
Brown.  
{¶ 15} In his complaint, Brown also cited federal and state constitutional 
provisions as an alternate basis for the issuance of the writ.  But he did not cite 
these provisions in his 2008 records requests, and he did not include any argument 
concerning them in his brief.  Therefore, we need not address this claim.  State ex 
rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 
26 (court need not address claim for writ of mandamus that was raised in 
complaint but was not specifically argued in merit brief). 
{¶ 16} Finally, insofar as Brown asserts in his merit brief that the 
superintendent’s evidence was improperly sealed, we subsequently granted the 
superintendent’s motion to maintain her affidavit under seal. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 17} Therefore, Brown has established a clear legal right to the 
requested records as well as a clear legal duty on the part of the superintendent to 
provide them.  Accordingly, we grant the writ. 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
 
Frank C. Brown Jr., pro se. 
 
Spengler Nathanson, P.L.L., Joan C. Szuberla, and Teresa L. Grigsby, for 
respondent. 
______________________