Court Opinion

ID: 9917132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 17:07:29.484179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:04.838798
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re G.C.B., 2024-Ohio-74.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE G.C.B.                                   :
                                               :               No. 112941
A Minor Child                                  :
                                               :
[Appeal by M.D.B., Father]                     :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 11, 2024

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                   Juvenile Division
                                Case No. FA-22-205737

                                        Appearances:

                 M.D.B., pro se.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

                   In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant, M.D.B. (“Father”), pro se, appeals

the juvenile trial court’s June 26, 2023 order raising a single assignment of error for

our review:

        1. Appellants judgment entry from the trial court was in violation of
           appellants due process to a fair trial under law.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
              C.T.M. (“Mother”) and M.D.B. are the natural mother and father of

G.C.B. and A.A.B., twin boys, d.o.b. 11/08/2016.

              According to Exhibit A attached to the trial court’s June 26, 2023

order, an evidentiary hearing was held on June 13, 2023, regarding:

      1. Father’s complaint or Motion to Adopt the Administrative Child
         Support Order as a Judicial Order. (Father attached to his motion
         or complaint the corrected Administrative Order for Child Support
         and Medical Support modified on August 9, 2018, the effective date
         was July 1, 2018, the amount was Three hundred Seventy-Seven
         Dollars and Eighty-Nine Dollars [377.89] per child.) The
         motion/complaint was filed June 6, 2022;

      2. Father’s Motion to Terminate Child Support filed on June 6, 2022;

      3. Father’s pleading for special appearance;

      4. Mother’s Motion to Show Cause (interference with parenting time
         or contact); and

      5. Mother’s Motion of July 25, 2022, to Modify the Shared Parenting
         Plan of June 3, 2022.

              The matter was transferred to the visiting/retired judge’s docket on

January 24, 2023.

              Father opposed the visiting/retired judge assignment at the March

pretrial and at the June hearing because Father claimed that he had not consented

to a retired judge sitting by assignment to hear these matters and that his right to

due process was being violated.

              Father also filed three affidavits for disqualification of this judge with

the Ohio Supreme Court in March, April, and May 2023. Finding no merit, all three

were dismissed by the Ohio Supreme Court. Father also filed a motion for change
of venue, citing a federal statute, that was denied by the trial court on April 28, 2023.

Father appealed this order, which was dismissed by this court as not being a final

appealable order.

               The trial court in its March and June pretrial judgment entries

ordered Mother and Father to produce within 14 days of the June hearing certain

financial and insurance documents, including tax returns, W-2’s, proof of income,

and proof of insurance, etc.

               Father, Mother, and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Paul Carroll from

the Child Support Enforcement Agency appeared at the June hearing wherein

Mother testified in support of her motions as well as in opposition to Father’s

motions. The trial court also found that Mother complied with its pretrial orders

and produced documents wherein Father did not. Father produced no documents.

               According to the trial court, Father was offered the opportunity to:

          a. Make an opening statement
          b. Cross-examine witnesses
          c. Call witnesses
          d. Object to exhibits
          e. Present his case
          f. Make a closing argument
          g. Answer questions from the Court.

               However, Father chose not to participate and repeatedly stated that

the court had no jurisdiction, that he had entered a special appearance, that the

judge had no authority to hear the motions, that he did not consent to a

visiting/retired judge, and that he was being denied due process and a fair trial.

Mother’s Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F were admitted into evidence.
               Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court on June 26, 2023,

issued a detailed journal entry finding that “Mother has shown a change of

circumstances. Father’s continued non-cooperation, threats, and failure to respond

makes such modification necessary and in the best interests of G.C.B and A.A.B.” As

a result, the court denied Father’s motions for failure to prosecute and adopted the

Mediation Agreement (“Parenting Plan”) dated June 3, 2022, as modified; kept the

Administrative Order for Child Support and Medical Support of August 9, 2018, in

full force and effect; and found Father guilty of contempt for interfering with

Mother’s parenting time, ordering a separate hearing be scheduled for sanctions.

Father timely appeals.

               In his sole assignment of error, Father alleges that the trial court

entered the June 2023 order in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, by failing to grant Father the right to have his matters heard in the

proper venue. In support of his assigned error, Father next states, “Evidence: United

States Constitution, Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal

government that no one shall be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law.’” Father then asks this court to reverse the judgment entry because

of the “willful violations of the United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment

because the trial court was in receipt of his timely filed objections and facts of law

applied.” It appears that Father is arguing that his objections to earlier proceedings

and rulings made by the court were not heard, that the trial court did not have

jurisdiction to hear matters pending before it at the June hearing, that the trial court
prevented him from speaking, and that the trial court “showed bias and unlawful

behavior toward him” in its determinations. For these reasons, Father asks this

court “to reverse the trial court’s decision and remand the matter for a new trial.”

No appellee brief was filed. No transcripts were filed.

               Father is proceeding pro se, and under Ohio Law, all litigants,

including those who are pro se, are held to the same standard and must be held

accountable for the rules of civil procedure and for their own mistakes. Bikkani v.

Lee, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89312, 2008-Ohio-3130, ¶ 29, citing Kilroy v. B.H.

Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 363, 676 N.E. 2d 171 (8th Dist.1996).

              Within this assignment of error, appellant argues, without any cogent

argument or sufficient explanation, that he was denied due process and a fair trial

and that he was not heard by the trial court. He continues to maintain, without any

legal authority, that the trial court was not qualified to hear these matters, even

though the Ohio Supreme Court has denied his requests three times, issuing three

separate opinions explaining its rulings.

              App.R. 16(A)(7) states that the appellant’s brief shall include “[a]n

argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each

assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the

contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on

which appellant relies.”   This rule is designed “to aid the reviewing court in

determining whether any reversible error occurred in the lower court by having the

complaining party specify the exact location(s) where such a determination can be
made.” Hildreth Mfg. v. Semco, Inc., 151 Ohio App.3d 693, 2003-Ohio-741, 785

N.E.2d 774, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). We are not obliged to scour the record in search of

evidence to support an appellant’s assignment of error. Nob Hill E. Condo. Assn. v.

Grundstein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95919, 2011-Ohio-2552, ¶ 11. Nor is it our duty

to search for law in support of an appellant’s argument on appeal. Strauss v.

Strauss, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95377, 2011-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72. The appellant’s brief

does not comport with the requirements set forth in App.R. 16(A)(7). Appellant’s

arguments are bare allegations unsupported by references to the record, and his

reference to a United States constitutional violation is mostly unconnected to the

record especially since he requests a change of venue to the federal court without

any legal support and then concludes his brief with a request that the matter be

returned to the same juvenile court for a new trial. Again, without providing any

legal support for Father’s request.

               He further believes that he entered only a “special appearance” for the

sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court yet complains that his

motions, objections, and matters before the court have not been heard. Moreover,

appellant has failed to prepare and file any transcript of any proceedings at which

he now complains of not being heard. It is the appellant’s duty to file the transcript

or any parts of the transcript that are necessary for evaluating the trial court’s

decision. App.R. 9; Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400

N.E.2d 384 (1980). “This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of

showing error by reference to matters in the record.” Id., citing State v. Skaggs, 53
Ohio St.2d 162, 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). Appellant’s failure to comply with App.R.

9 and his failure to fulfill his duty to file the parts of the transcript that are necessary

to enable this court to evaluate the trial court’s judgment cannot be excused on the

basis that he is acting pro se. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 107951, 2019-Ohio-4059, ¶ 31. Without the filing of a transcript (or

a statement of the evidence or proceedings under App.R. 9(C) or an agreed

statement under App.R. 9(D)), this court must presume regularity in the trial court’s

proceedings. Knapp at id. (“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution

of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to

pass upon and, thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to

presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”). This means that

we must “presume that the trial court considered all the evidence and arguments

raised” and that sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court’s

decision. Bakhtiar v. Saghafi, 2016-Ohio-8052, 75 N.E.3d 801, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.) (“In

the absence of a complete and adequate record, a reviewing court must presume the

regularity of the trial court proceedings and the presence of sufficient evidence to

support the trial court’s decision.”). Appellant’s failure to (1) provide any cogent

argument in support of his assignment of error, (2) cite to the record, (3) provide

relevant legal authority, and (4) make the transcript part of the record renders his

assignment of error beyond our consideration. We must accept the trial court’s

findings that Father, due to his own conduct, failed to participate in the proceedings,
failed to present any evidence, and, without legal authority, repeatedly argues

constitutional violations and asks for a do over.

              Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR