Court Opinion

ID: 9395149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 13:06:32.573416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.871480
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re S.D., 2023-Ohio-1645.]

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                           HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 IN RE: S.D.                                  :   APPEAL NO. C-220483
                                                  TRIAL NO. F18-1396X
                                              :

                                              :     O P I N I O N.

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 17, 2023

Christopher P. Kapsal, for Appellee Mother,

Father, pro se.
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}   Appellant mother requests reversal of the juvenile court’s order

granting custody of S.D. to appellee father. In two assignments of error, mother argues

that the juvenile court abused its discretion in awarding custody to father because it

violated mother’s due-process rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard and that

the court failed to apply the correct legal standard in its custody decision.

       {¶2}   After a thorough review of the record, we hold that mother’s due-

process rights were violated, and the juvenile court abused its discretion by divesting

mother of legal custody.

                        I. Factual and Procedural History

       {¶3}   S.D. was previously adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary

custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”).

After mother’s cooperation with HCJFS and participation in case-plan services, the

juvenile court remanded custody to mother in July 2020. The court ordered that father

was entitled to reasonable visitation.

       {¶4}   In December 2021, father initiated contempt proceedings against

mother, alleging that she had not permitted visitation as ordered. Father also filed a

motion for visitation. Mother missed the first hearing on father’s motions, but she

attended the second hearing. In May 2022, when father did not attend the third

hearing on his motions, the court dismissed his motions without prejudice.

       {¶5}   In June 2022, Father filed a motion for custody of S.D. and a request for

an emergency hearing. At the emergency hearing, the magistrate denied father’s

request for emergency custody and scheduled a pretrial hearing on the custody motion

for July 19, 2022.

                                            2
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶6}       Mother and father both appeared at the July 19 hearing, which was

conducted remotely via Zoom videoconference. After a lengthy exchange between

mother and father, the magistrate interrupted and stated:

       Okay. Your trial date is August 1 at ten. I put you both on mute.

       And I’ll hear from you with sworn testimony at that date and time.

       Thank you, folks. Good luck on working this out.

The magistrate then answered father’s question about presenting evidence. After that,

the magistrate ended the hearing.

       {¶7}       On the morning of August 1, the magistrate conducted the custody trial

in person. Father appeared, but mother did not. The magistrate noted that mother had

not appeared but made no further comment about mother’s status. After taking

testimony from father, the magistrate granted father’s motion for custody.

       {¶8}       Later that day, mother, acting pro se, filed a motion for custody and a

request for an emergency hearing. That same day, mother appeared at an ex-parte

hearing on her motion before a different magistrate. Mother testified that she was

unaware that the trial had been scheduled for that morning. She testified that she did

not hear the date set at the end of the July 19 hearing, and no written notice had been

mailed to her. Mother explained that she did not find out about the trial until after it

had concluded, when she called her cousin, who had been watching S.D., to discuss

another matter. Her cousin informed her that father had been granted custody that

morning. Mother also testified to various conditions in support of returning custody

of S.D. to her.

       {¶9}       The magistrate denied mother’s motion because mother had not

demonstrated that S.D. was at imminent risk of serious emotional or physical harm.

                                             3
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

The magistrate then informed mother that the proper recourse would be to file

objections to the magistrate’s custody decision. The magistrate stated, “I can’t grant

this motion, but I think the situation is very concerning, and there’s a lot of things

going on at a lot of different levels.”

       {¶10} The next day, mother filed a motion to set aside the magistrate’s

decision. Mother followed this with written objections to the magistrate’s decision on

August 11. In both filings, mother addressed the lack of notice of the August 1 trial date.

Mother also made factual assertions suggesting that father’s custody of S.D. is not in

S.D.’s best interest and challenged the merits of the magistrate’s custody decision.

       {¶11} On September 2, the juvenile court held a hearing on mother’s motion

to set aside and her objections to the magistrate’s decision. At the objections hearing,

mother was represented by counsel. Father appeared pro se. The court limited

argument to the issue of notice and would not take additional evidence on the merits

of the custody decision.

       {¶12} At the hearing, mother established that the court had not been sending

documents to her correct address, but rather had been sending mail to her old address

that was not forwarded. Mother testified that she had learned of the July 19 hearing

from her caseworker, “maybe 10 hours before the court date.” Mother testified that the

Zoom audio connection was not very good during the hearing. Mother claimed that

she had not been able to hear the trial date, and then because the magistrate had put

her on mute, she could not alert the court to the fact that she had not heard. Finally,

mother testified that she did not receive notice of the hearing by mail. The court’s

docket confirms that no notice of the August 1 trial date was sent to mother or father.

       {¶13} Following the hearing, the court denied mother’s objections. The court

                                            4
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

found that “[t]he Magistrate clearly identified the date for trial in the July 19, 2022

hearing which Mother participated in.” The court also found that there was sufficient

evidence to permit the magistrate to decide custody in favor of father. Accordingly, the

court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted custody of S.D. to father.

       {¶14} Mother timely appealed the juvenile court’s order.

                                     II. Analysis

       {¶15} In her first assignment of error, mother argues that “[t]he Juvenile

Court abused its discretion by divesting mother of legal custody when only an ex-parte

trial was conducted, and pre-trial procedures required by local rule and due process

had not been complied with, resulting in a lack of proper inquiry into adequate notice

to appellant and of her right to counsel.”

       {¶16} Mother argues that she was denied her right to due process because she

lacked adequate notice of the custody trial. Mother also argues that the juvenile court

did not make her aware of her right to counsel in the custody proceedings, in violation

of the local rules in effect at the time. Mother contends that the juvenile court had the

opportunity to correct the due-process issue at the hearing on mother’s objections, but

instead chose to only allow additional evidence regarding the notice issue.

       {¶17} This court reviews custody decisions of the juvenile court for an abuse

of discretion. Bohannon v. Lewis, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210316 and C-210332,

2022-Ohio-2398, ¶ 14. As such, this court must affirm the decision below “unless the

court has exercised its discretionary judgment over the matter in an unwarranted way

or committed legal error.” State v. A.S., 2022-Ohio-3833, 199 N.E.3d 994, ¶ 5 (1st

Dist.), citing Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427, 2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d

463, ¶ 35. We employ a de novo review in matters alleging a violation of due process.

                                             5
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Puruczky v. Corsi, 2018-Ohio-1335, 110 N.E.3d 73, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.).

       {¶18} Due process requires both notice and an opportunity to be heard. In re

Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409, 2007-Ohio-5238, 875 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 13. “ ‘An

elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is

to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to

apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an

opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Id., quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank

& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

       {¶19} The juvenile court held that “[t]he magistrate clearly identified the date

for the trial in the July 19, 2022 hearing which Mother participated in.” We agree that

the magistrate did state the trial date on the record. However, the issue before the

juvenile court was that mother claimed, under oath, that she did not hear this date and

did not receive notice of the date. The juvenile court failed to address the issue of

whether mother lacked notice of the custody trial date.

       {¶20} After reviewing the record, we are persuaded that mother lacked notice

of the custody trial date. The court’s docket confirms that no notice was sent by mail

or other means by the court. The only opportunity mother had to be informed of the

date was the single statement from the magistrate at the Zoom pretrial hearing. The

transcript of that hearing shows that mother was having audio difficulties, and mother

testified to that fact at the objections hearing. The transcript also shows that the

magistrate made no effort to confirm that the parties had actually heard the date and

time set for the trial. In addition, when mother became aware that the trial had been

conducted without her presence, she filed an emergency motion for custody and

appeared before a magistrate that same day.

                                           6
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶21} Taking into account the remote nature of the pretrial hearing, the

magistrate’s failure to confirm that the parties had heard the date, the lack of any other

form of notice provided by the court, mother’s immediate action upon learning about

the custody decision, and mother’s uncontested, sworn testimony at the objections

hearing, we find that mother was not afforded adequate notice of the custody trial

before the magistrate.

       {¶22} “Under Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(b), in ruling on objections, a juvenile court may

‘take additional evidence, or return a matter to a magistrate.’ ” In re M/W Children,

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180623, 2019-Ohio-948, ¶ 38. Upon learning that mother

did not attend the custody trial because she did not hear the magistrate state the trial

date on the record and did not receive notice by mail, the juvenile court had the

opportunity to correct this problem at the objections hearing. It could have either

taken additional evidence on the merits of the custody motion or returned the matter

to the magistrate to do the same. But the juvenile court made clear that it would only

take evidence on the notice issue.

       {¶23} In light of the fact that mother did not receive notice of the magistrate

trial date, we find that it was an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court to overrule

mother’s objections without taking additional evidence or at a minimum, returning

the matter to the magistrate. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 38 (holding that the juvenile court “could

have conserved substantial judicial resources while causing little inconvenience to the

parties or the court” by permitting additional testimony on the merits at the objections

hearing).

       {¶24} Because mother lacked adequate notice of the custody trial, it was an

abuse of discretion to award custody to father.

                                             7
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                                  III. Conclusion

       {¶25} For the foregoing reasons, we sustain mother’s first assignment of error,

reverse the judgment of the juvenile court, and remand the cause for further

proceedings. Because the first assignment of error is dispositive, the second

assignment of error is moot, and we decline to address it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

                                               Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

ZAYAS and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           8