Court Opinion

ID: 9813980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:28:07.567749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:03.921776
License: Public Domain

Painter, Judge,
concurring separately.
Judge Sundermann’s analysis is flawless. I write separately to express my astonishment that the trial court believed that it could abrogate parental rights in such a summary manner. First, it was the wrong court — we have specialized courts to deal with child-custody issues. Second, the order that Sturgeon not have any contact with his children was just sprung upon him, almost as an afterthought, at a sentencing hearing. And third, the order to “stay away from Ramsey and her children” shows a fundamental misunderstanding — children are children of both parents.
Also troubling is the fact that neither Sturgeon nor his counsel was apparently permitted to view the victim-impact statement. We were informed at oral argument that some trial judges routinely keep the victim statements secret. Can a person be sentenced on information he has no opportunity to rebut? R.C. 2930.14 requires the court to give the defendant the opportunity to respond to any new information in the victim statement, but only allows the court to give the defendant a copy of the statement. If the defendant or counsel cannot read the statement, how can they respond? The resolution of the present case does not require us to decide whether such a “star chamber” proceeding is allowable — that issue awaits another day — but surely the far better practice is to furnish copies of the victim statements to all parties. Secrecy in any proceeding invites mistrust of the outcome.