ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
}
}
}
Relator, }
}
}
V.
}
THE HONORABLE MARY R. KOVACK }
Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, }
Domestic Relations Division }
}
Respondent.
THE STATE OF OHIO EX REL
JEFFREY MORROW
CASE NO. 11-0653
ANSWER OF THE HONORABLE
MARY R. KOVACK, JUDGE,
MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, DOMESTIC
RELATIONS DIVISION,
RESPONDENT
ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROCEDENDO OR FOR AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT
ANSWER OF RESPONDENT
DEAN HOLMAN
Prosecuting Attorney of
Medina County, Ohio
BRIAN M. RICHTER (0040409)
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
(Counsel of Record)
72 Public Square
Medina, Ohio 44256
(330) 723-9536
(330) 764-8400/Facsimile
E-Mail brichter(^
u medinaco.org
JOHN C. RAGNER (0075021)
Towne, Hanna & Rasnick, Co., L. P. A.
388 South Main Street, Suite 402
Akron, Ohio 44311
(330) 253-2227
(330) 253-1261 Facsimile
E-Mail iragner(a^neolaw.biz
Attorney for Relator
Attorney for Respondent
Judge Mary R. Kovack
Medina County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
THE STATE OF OHIO eg rel. }
JEFFERY MORROW } CASE NO. 11-0653
}
}
Relator,
}
}
THE HONORABLE MARY R. KOVACK } ANSWER OF THE HONORABLE
} MARY R. KOVACK, JUDGE,
Respondent. } MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF
} COMMON PLEAS, DOMESTIC
} RELATIONS DIVISION,
} RESPONDENT
Respondent, the Honorable Mary R. Kovack, Judge of Medina County Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Medina County, Ohio ("Court Respondent"), submits her
Answer to Relator's Amended Complaint for Writ of Procedendo or for an Altemate Writ, as
follows:
1. The Court Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the
Complaint that she is the duly elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division for Medina County, Ohio, to whom the referenced
Medina County Court of Common Pleas Case Number 04 PA 0199 is assigned.
2. The Court Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint for
want of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
veracity thereof.
3. The Court Respondent admits that a Post Decree Motion for Modification of
Child Support was filed by Relator on August 4, 2009 in Medina County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 04 PA 0199 as alleged in
Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. (See, a certified copy of the Court's Docket, Case
No. 04 PA 0199, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A").
4. The Court Respondent admits that a Motion for Modification of Parenting Time
was filed on August 28, 2009 in Medina County Court of Common Pleas Court
Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 04 PA 0199 as alleged in Paragraph 4 of
the Complaint. (See Exhibit "A"). The Court Respondent denies the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint for want of knowledge or infornlation
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity thereof.
5. The Court Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the
Complaint. (See, Exhibit "A").
6. The Court Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the
Complaint and states that the hearing that occurred on August 10, 2010, involved
the Motion for Modification of Child Support and a Motion to Show Cause
alleging that Relator failed to pay child support and failed to pay child support by
wage withholding. (See, Exhibit "A").
7. The Court Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9
of the Complaint. (See, Exhibit "A").
8. The Court Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint
indicating that the decision issued by the Magistrate on January 12, 2011 and
supplemented on January 18, 2011, were solely regarding the child support issue
and states that the decision by the Magistrate issued on January 12, 2011 and the
supplemental decision issued on January 18, 2011 also addressed a Motion to
Show Cause filed against Relator. The January 12, 2011 decision and
Supplemental January 18, 2011 of the Magistrate, in part, found Relator [Plaintiff]
to be in Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support by wage withholding as
ordered.
9. For her Answer to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint Court Respondent admits that
Relator filed a timely objection with a supporting Memorandum, to the
Magistrates decision filed January 12, 2011 and Supplemental decision filed
January 18, 2011. Court Respondent further states that the objection was in
reference to child support and the Magistrate's finding that Relator was in
Contempt of Court for failing to pay his child support by wage withholding as
ordered. (See, Exhibit "A")
10. For her Answer to Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Court Respondent admits that a
hearing was held on March 9, 2011 on Relator's objections to the Magistrate's
decision filed January 12, 2011 and supplemental decision filed on January 18,
2011, regarding the Motion to Modify Child Support and the Motion to Show
Cause filed against Relator [PlaintiffJ. (See, Exhibit "A")
11. The Court Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the
Complaint.
12. For her Answer to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the Court Respondent admits
that on April 19, 2011 Relator filed a Rule 65 certificate and a Post Decree
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and states
that the Motion speaks for itself. Court Respondent denies the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
13. The Court Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the
Complaint for want of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity thereof.
14. The Court Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the
Complaint for want of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity thereof.
15. The Court Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the
Complaint for want of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity thereof.
16. The Court Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint
and further states that Respondent has ruled on Relator's Objections to the
Magistrate's decision regarding the parenting time issue, as evidenced in the
Judgment Entry attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B".
17. The Court Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order was set for hearing in an Order
filed on Apri122, 2011. (See, Exhibits "A" and "B").
18. For her Answer to Paragraph 20, of the Complaint, Court Respondent only admits
that the dates on which the Motions were filed may be discerned from the copy of
the Docket Sheet attached as Exhibit "1" of the Complaint. Court Respondent
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
19. The Court Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 21, 22, 23
and 24 of the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Relators' Complaint for Writ of Procedendo or for an Alternarive Writ fails to
state claim upon which relief can be granted under Ohio law, and specifically,
fails to state a claim for extraordinary relief in procedendo or mandamus.
2. Relators' remedy lies in the ordinary course of the law.
3. Relators' remedy lies in the ordinary course of the law via direct appeal.
4. Procedendo does not lie where a trial court has neither refused to render
judgment, nor unnecessary delayed proceeding to judgment. See State ex rel.
Turpin v. Stark County Court of Common Pleas (1966), 8 Ohio St. 2d 1.
5. Procedendo does not lie where a trial court has merely entered an interlocutory
order, which a Relator contends is erroneous, but has not refused to render a
judgment or exercise jurisdiction.
State ex rel. Jacobs v. Municipal Court of
Franklin County (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 239.
6. Procedendo may not be used to contest the due course of proceedings, or as a
substitute for appeal. State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 81 Ohio St. 3d 325.
7. Procedendo does not lie to control the judgment of the trial court, nor can it
control the judgment to be entered, or direct that a judgment be entered for or
against a particular party. State ex rel. Neiderlehner v. Mack (1932), 125 Ohio St.
559.
8. Relators' claims are moot.
9. Relator does not have a clear legal right to have relief prayed for.
10. Court Respondent is under no clear duty to perform an unperformed act.
11. Procedendo or mandamus does not lie to compel a court respondent's discretion.
WHEREFORE, this Honorable Court should deny Relator's Amended Complaint for
Procedendo or an Alternative Writ where the Complaint fails to state a claim that meets even the
threshold requirements for extraordinary relief in procedendo or mandamus: The Court
Respondent has neither refused to rule on Relators' respective Post Decree Motions nor has the
Court Respondent unreasonably delayed going to judgment.
Accordingly, Relators' ill-founded bid for extraordinary relief in procedendo and/or
mandamus should be dismissed. Relators' relief lies in the ordinary course of the law, whether
via direct appeal or otherwise.
Respectfully submitted,
DEAN HOLMAN
Medina County Prosecuting A
BRIAN M. RICIATM (0040409)
72 Public Square
Medina, Ohio 44256
Phone: (330) 723-9536
Facsimile: (330) 764-8400
brichter@medinaco. org
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
JUDGE MARY R. KOVACK, MEDINA
COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Yage 1 ot ^
Online Public Inquiry [Case Detail]
General Index Case Detail
Case Information
J udge
Status File
Cese # Tvne Title ubt e
04PA0199 Paternity JEFFREY S MORROW -VS- SHERRI P BECKER PATERNITY HEARING SET 12/17/2004 MARY R. KOVACK
Party Information
ate Zip Attention P n# Associations
m
Active Add reSS
Tvoe Name
HOFFMANN,LINDA
44281
WADSWORTH OH
DEF BECKER, SHERRI True 155 NEWTON DR
[DAT]
P
(330)
MORROW,
PAT CAMPBELL, False 2717 MANCHESTER RD AKRON OH
645-0431 JEFFREY S [PLT]
JAMES M
(330) BECKER, SHERRI P
DAT HOFFMANN, True 273 MAIN ST STE 200 WADSWORTH OH 44281
334-1536 [DEF]
LINDA
CAMPBELL,JAMES
PLT MORROW, True 447 BARNHILL DR MEDINA OH 44256
M [PAT]
JEFFREY S
RAGNER, JOHN C
[PAT]
SALZGEBER,
JOSEPH F. [PAT]
PAT RAGNER, JOHN True 388 SOUTH MAIN
C STREET SUITE 402
AKRON OH 44311 (330) MORROW,
253-2227 JEFFREY S [PLT]
PAT SALZGEBER, False P.O. BOX 799
JOSEPH F.
BRUNSWICK OH 44212 (330) MORROW,
220-7390 JEFFREY S [PLT]
Charge Information
Code
Sentences
Charge
Filing Information
Document
Notes
7/22/2011
Tftle
HEARING SET
MOT TEMP RO
No
Document
6/24/2011
HEARING SET
PURGE HRG
No
Document
5/10/2011
JUDGMENT ENTRY
RE: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
View
5/10/2011
NOTICE OF HEARING
PURGE HRG 6/24/11 @ 9:30 - 9:45 AM BEFORE JUDGE KOVACK
View
4/26/2011
CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE
COMPLETED ON
LINDA HOFFMAN # 6153, SIGNED A MENDEL
View
4/25/2011
CERTIFIED MAIL SENT
RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
CERT COPY POST DECREE MOT, CERTIFICATE TO LINDA HOFFMAN
#6153
View
4/25/2011
CERTIFIED MAIL SENT
RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
CERT COPY POSTDECREEPAOT, CERTIFICATE TO SHERRI BECKER
#6146 . . .. .
View
4/22/2011
NOTICE OF HEARING
MOT FOR TFrMP RESI"RAIIJING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, CIV
R 65 CERT19iCATE ?EMp RO) JULY,2<, 2011@3:00-4:OOPM BEFORE MAG
OWEN
View
4/19/2011
CERTIFICATE
4/19/2011
INSTRUCTIONS FOR
CIVIL R. 65 CERTIFICATE
MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-STATE OF
OHIO, MEDINA-COUNTYS.S. I,hefebgcerf[fy that this Is a true
Date
EXHIBIT
copy of the onglna[ on file In sa[d,rSSutt: Witness nry hand and the
aeal of a[d cdurt at Medih hio this day of
rth, Clerk of CouAs
G4 , ^I
n[d B. Wad
By
No
Document
View
Deputy
http://172.16.1.20/MEDCT_EPUBLIC/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=04PA0199 5/11/2011
Online Public Inquiry [Case Detail] Page 2 oY 5
SERVICE
4/19/2011 POST DECREE MOTION FOR TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION View
4/19/2011 MOTION INCURRING COST No
D ocumen t
3/10/2011 CERT FOR COURT
STENOGRAPHER'S FEES
3/9/2011 DOCKET NOTATION
View
View
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION View
3/3/2011 SUPPLEMENTAL
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM W/ CERT OF SERVICE, EXHIBIT A,
EXHIBIT 1, EXHIBIT 2 (AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C RAGNER CD IN COURT'S
CONFIDENTIAL FILE), EXHIBIT B
View
2/24/2011 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON AUGUST 10, 2010 BEFORE MAG OWEN
PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED &
FILED
View
2/17/2011 TRANSCRIPT OF FOR HEARING ON AUGUST 10, 2010 BEFORE MAG OWEN
PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED &
FILED
GRANTING PLT MOT FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OBJ View
ORDER
2/1/2011
OBJECTIONS TO MAG DEC MARCH 9, 2001@8:30-9:OOAM BEFORE JUDGE View
KOVACK
View
FOR TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
2/1/2011
NOTICE OF HEARING
2/1 /2011
PRAECIPE TO COURT
REPORTER
1/26/2011
PRECIPE TO COURT
REPORTER FILED
1/26/2011
OBJECTIONS-DOMESTIC
TO MAG DEC AND SUPPORTING MEMO W/ LEAVE TO FILE View
SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
1/18/2011
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
SUPPLEMENTAL MAGISTRATE'S DECISION RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO View
MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT AND DEFENDANT'S MTSC
1/12/2011 MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
RE: DEF'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE re: CHILD SUPPORT View
View
1/12/2011 DOCKET NOTATION
12/8/2010 REQUEST
10/20/2010 DOCKET NOTATION
10/13/2010 CERTIFICATE FOR COURT
STENOGRAPHER'S FEES
View
FOR FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW W/CERTIFICATE OF View
SERVICE
View
View
10/13/2010 SUPPLEMENTAL
DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S View
OBJECTIONS W/PROOF OF SERVICE
10/12/2010 NOTICE OF FILING
PLT'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION AND View
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM AND PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLT'S OBJECTION TO THE
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
10/12/2010 SUPPLEMENTAL
OBJECTIONS
PLT'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION AND View
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
10/12/2010 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO View
PLT'S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION WITH CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
No
COMMENCING ON JULY 27, 2010
Document
10/5/2010
TRANSCRIPT
10/5/2010 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION
View
10/1/2010 REPLY
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S View
OBJECTION TO THE MAG. DECISION AND MOT FOR LEAVE TO
SUPPLEMENT OBJECTION AND PARTY W/CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9/27/2010 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS View
9/16/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION ON 10/13/2010 @ 3:00 PM-3:30 View
PM BEFORE JUDGE KOVACK
9/13/2010 OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION AND View
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
9/7/2010 PRAECIPE TO COURT
FOR TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS View
http://172.16.1.20/MEDCT_EPUBLIC/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=04PA0199 5/11/2011
Page 3 ot ^)
Online Public Inquiry [Case Detail]
REPORTER
8/30/2010
JUDGMENT ENTRY
RE: PARENTING TIME
View
8/30/2010
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
RE: DEF'S MOTION TO MODIFY PARENTING TIME
View
8/30/2010
DOCKET NOTATION
8/10/2010
NOTICE OF SERVING
WITH PROOF OF SERVICE
View
8/6/2010
SUBPOENA(S) RETURNED
GOOD SERVICE
2SUBPOENAS
No
Document
8/6/2010
MAGISTRATE'S ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PLEAD
View
8/6/2010
SUBPOENA(S) RETURNED
GOOD SERVICE
2SUBPOENAS
No
Document
8/6/2010
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PLEAD TO SUBMIT PLAINTIFF'S FINAL WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST
View
8/5/2010
SUBPOENA(S) ISSUED
2 SUBPEONAS
No
Document
8/4/2010
SUBPOENA(S) ISSUED
2SUBPOENAS
No
Document
8/4/2010
SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS
LIST
PLAINTIIF'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST
W/CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
No
Document
8/4/2010
MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE DENIED
HRG. 8/10/2010 @ 1:00 P.M. BEFORE/MAG. OWEN
View
8/4/2010
ORDERAPPOINTING
PROCESSSERVER
8/3/2010
MOTION TO APPOINT
MOTION TO APPOINT PROCESS SERVER
View
8/3/2010
MAGISTRATE'S ORDER
PERMITTING ATTORNEY JAMES M CAMPBELL TO WITHDRAWAL AS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF JEFFERY MORROW
View
8/2/2010
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
No
Document
8/2/2010
MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE
PLAINTIFF
View
8/2/2010
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
OF COUNSEL
ATTY JOHN C RAGNER COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
View
7/29/2010
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL
WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND AFFIDAVIT
View
7/12/2010
SUPPLEMENTAL
DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST
View
6/9/2010
JUDGMENT ENTRY
RE: PLAINTIFF'S POST DECREE MOT FOR MODIFICATION REDUCTION
OF CHILD SUPPORT IS CONTINUED TO A HRG DATE TO BE SET BY THE
COURT;DEFENDANT'S MOT FOR PARENTING TIME MODIFICATION
View
5/21/2010
MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE GRANTED
HEARING 7-27-2010
View
5/20/2010
DOCKET NOTATION
5/20/2010
AFFIDAVIT
OF PLAINTIFF JEFFREY MORROW
View
5/20/2010
MOTION TO CONTINUE
W/CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
View
5/7/2010
MOTION TO CONTINUE
DEFENDANT W/PROOF OF SERVICE
View
2/26/2010
DOCKET NOTATION
2/25/2010
MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE GRANTED
HRG. 5/21/2010 @9:00 A.M. BEFORE/MAG. OWEN RE: HRG. DATE SET
FOR 2/24/2010 AND 2/25/2010
View
2/24/2010
MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE
W/CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
View
2/17/2010
NOTICE OF HEARING
MOT. TO FILE CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL FEB 24, 2010 @ 1:004:30PM BEFORE MAG OWEN
View
2/12/2010
NOTICE OF SERVING
2/12/2010
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST
DEFENDANT
No
Document
2/11/2010
EXHIBIT LIST
OF PLAINTIFF
View
2/11/2010
WITNESS LIST
OF PLAINTIFF
No
Document
View
View
View
View
View
http://172.16.1.20/MEDCT EPUBLIC/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=04PA0199
5/11/2011
Online Public Inquiry [Case Detail] Yage 4 ot D
2/11/2010 MOTION
TO FILE CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL
View
1/20/2010 NOTICE OF SERVICE
OF PLT SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY REQUEST
View
View
1/8/2010 PROCESS SERVERS
RETURN FILED
1/6/2010 PERSONAL SERVICE MADE
ON
JEFFREY SCOTT MORROW
View
1/4/2010 COPIES W/INSTRUCTIONS
ISSUED PROCESS SERVER
JEFFREY MORROW BY PROCESS SERVER---CERTIFIED COPY OF
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, ORDER TO APPEAR, NOH
View
12/30/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ON FEBRUARY 24, 2010 @ 1:00 PM TO 4:30 PM
BEFORE MAG OWEN
JEFFREY MORROW TO APPEAR ON FEBRUARY 24, 2010 @ 1:00 PM FOR
CONTEMPT
View
12/30/2009 ORDER TO APPEAR
No
Document
12/30/2009 MOTION INCURRING COST
No
Document
12/30/2009 PRECIPE FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE FILED
View
12/30/2009 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
12/16/2009 NOTICE OF SERVICE
View
OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DIRECTED TO THE
DEFENDANT
12/14/2009 ORDER APPOINTING
PROCESSSERVER
12/9/2009 NOTICE OF SERVING
12/9/2009 MOTION TO APPOINT PROCESS SERVER
PATERNITY ACTION PRETRIAL. FINAL HEARING TRIAL DATE FEB 24,
10/27/2009 MAGISTRATE'S ORDER
2010@1:00-4:30PM, FEB 25, 2010@9:00-4:30PM BEFORE MAG O WEN
10/27/2009 DOCKET NOTATION
10/14/2009 NOTICE OF SERVICE
9/22/2009 MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS
OF TIME
9/22/2009 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES UPON THE
DEFENDANT
8/28/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING MOTION TO MODIFY VISITATION OCT 23, 2009@3:00-4:OOPM BEFORE
MAG OWEN
8/28/2009 NOTICE OF SERVICE
8/28/2009 MOTION FOR OF PARENTING TIME
MODIFICATION
8/28/2009 MOTION INCURRING COST
8/27/2009 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE LINDA HOFFMAN FOR DEF
8/15/2009 CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE SHERRI P BECKER #2033
COMPLETED ON
8/14/2009 CERTIFIED MAIL SENT CERT COPY POST DECREE MOTION, NOH TO SHERRI BECKER #2033
RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
8/13/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING MOTION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT OCT 23, 2009@3:00-4:OOPM
BEFORE MAG OWEN
8/4/2009 POST DECREE MOTION FOR MODIFICATION (REDUCTION) OF CHILD SUPPORT
8/4/2009 INSTRUCTIONS FOR
SERVICE
4/7/2008 DOCKET NOTATION
2/7/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING MTSC FAILURE TO SIGN FORM 8332 ON MARCH 27, 2008@1:00-2:OOPM
BEFORE MAG MCCORMACK
1/22/2008 CERTIFIED COPY OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY.--JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED
View
View
View
View
View
View
View
Vi ew
View
View
View
View
No
Document
View
View
View
View
View
View
View
View
View
7/13/2007 ORDER 1532/624 ORDER OF CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED ON AUGUST 16, 2007 @ View
3:00 PM TO 4;00 PM BEFORE MAG McCORMACK
http://172.16.1.20/MEDCT_EPUBLIC/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=04PA0199 5/11/2011
Online Public Inquiry [Case Detail] rage D 01 j
7/6/2007
TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS
No
Document
7/6/2007
TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS FILED
No
Document
7/5/2007
MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE
BY JEFFREY MORROW
6/29/2007
TRANSCRIPT OF DOCKET &
JOURNAL ENTRIES FILED
IN COURT OF APPEALS
6/28/2007
ORDINARY MAIL RECEIPT
RETURNED FROM USPS
SHERRIBECKER
CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE
COMPLETED ON
SHERRI P BECKER (ANTHONY VALENTIN)--7242
View
6/27/2007
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
POST DECREE MOTION; SUMMONS AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF
HEARING SENT TO SHERRI P. BECKER BY REGULAR MAIL
View
6/26/2007
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED
1528/74-74A (SUMMONS & ORDER TO APPEAR)
View
6/25/2007
CERTIFIED MAIL SENT
RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
POST DECREE MOTION; SUMMONS AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF
HEARING SENT TO SHERRI P. BECKER CMRRR # 7242
View
6125/2007
NOTICE OF HEARING
MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO SIGN FORM 8332 - 8/2/2007
9:00 - 10:00 BEFORE MAG. MCCORMACK
View
6/25/2007
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED
1526/816-817 (WITHDRAWAL OF DAVID FERGUSON AS COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF)
View
6/20/2007
6/20/2007
DOCKET NOTATION
6/8/2007
View
View
View
View
POST DECREE MOTION
W/ SUMMARY EXPL., INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE ON SHERRI BECKER
BY CERT MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL COM
Document
6/5/2007
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
AS COUNSEL
DAVID H. FERGUSON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF,
JEFFREY MORROW.
Document
5/25/2007
DOCKETING STATEMENT
W/ATTACHMENT FILED.
No
Document
5/25/2007
PRAECIPE
TO COURT REPORTER W/CERT. OF SERVICE FILED.
No
Document
5/25/2007
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
NOTICE OF APPEAL W/CERT. OF SERVICE FILED (APPEAL #07CA0054-M)
5/11/2007
JUDGMENT ENTRY
VL1517/PG326 RE: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (BY K WILLIAM
BAILEY, JUDGE BY ASSIGNMENT FOR JUV)
Document
5/4/2007
REQUEST
FOR A COPY OF THE HEARING HELD 4/23/07
No
Document
5/2/2007
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORIENTATION & EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 6/19/2007 5:30- 7:00 BEFORE
BARBARA HOFELICH
No
Document
4/30/2007
ORDER OF TRANSFER TO
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
COURT
VL1515/PG151
No
Document
4/30/2007
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Document
No
Document
http://172.16.1.20/MEDCT_EPUBLIC/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=04PA0199 5/11/2011
Sea%rch %Clear
C%lose
%Open
%Save
%Print
1 Add Record
2 Events
3 Image
4
Search Criteria
2004 12 CV 0057 Morrow, Jeffrey vs. Becker, Sherri P. JJL
Docket
Entry
Begin
Date
Images
All
Dockets
End
Participant
Display Exclude Non Display Dockets
Option
Search Results
Docket
Date'
SortDescending
Date
Amt Owed/
Amt
Dism/Credit
Referenc Description
e
Amount Due
Parties
5 Reorder Dockets
5/4/2009
Duplication of tape recorded hearing filed by
Plaintiff Receipt: 20916 Date: 05/04/2009 15.00
4/30/2007
Order Of Transfer To Domestic Relations Court
6 Forms
7 Long Display
8 Print Docket
9 Docket ID
Display
10 Global Cost
Dismiss
11 Delete Record
Order Of Transfer To Domestic Relations Court
Sent on: 04/30/2004 08:36:54
4/26/2007
Accounts Receivable Statement:
Becker, Sherri P. was sent bill for $40.50.
Printed on 04/26/2007 15:09:39.
4/26/2007
Morrow, Jeffrey was sent bill for $0.00.
Printed on 04/26/2007 15:09:38.
4/26/2007
Refund
4/26/2009
Proof of Service by Regular Mail to Atty.
Ferguson , Plaintiff , Defen d ant, CSEA an d J u d g
Bailey
4/26/2009
4/16/2007
22 .50
Civil Proof of Service (E-Signature)
Sent on: 04/26/2009 14:28:27
Judgment Entry & Orders Receipt: 20946 Date:
05/08/2007
8.00
Successful Service
Method : Certified mail 4-d
Issued : 04/13/2007
Service : Civil Case Summons
Served : 04/14/2007
Return : 04/16/2007
On : Valiante, Eric
Signed By : Eric Valiante
Reason : Successful
Comment
4/13/2007
Tracking #: 71603901984960346631
Issue Date: 04/13/2007 _
Service: Civil Case Summons
Method: Certified mail 4-d
Cost Per: $ 5.00
5.00
Valiante, Eric
140 Simcox
Wadsworth, OH 44281
Tracking No: 91603901984960346631
Receipt: 20946 Date: 05/08/2007
4/13/2007 Instructicns for Service for Subpoena on Eric
Valiante by Certified Mail filed by Defendant
4/4/2009
Successful Service
Method
:
Issued
Service
Served
Certified
:
:
:
mail
4-d
04/02/2007
Civil
Case Summons
04/03/2007
Return : 04/04/2004
On : Adkins, John
Signed By : Unreadable
Reason : Successful
Comment
4/4/2007
Tracking #: 71603901984960346600
Successful Service
Method : Certified mail 4-d
MEDINA COUNTY COURT 6F COMMON PLEAS' J W EN(LE DIVISIOA
STATE OF OHIO, 6a: I hefeby oe4M thatthie isa true copyof the odgint
onflkN heed aeYoieeidCour<otMetlinc
^y^ - ' J^1dLOHN,JUDG
^ ^^ ,^ -4;. ,OEPUiI
Issued 04/02/LUu
Service Civil Case summons
Served
Return 04/04/2007
On Rogers, Laura
Signed By Laura Rogers
Reason
Successful
Comment
... Tracking #: 71603901984960346594
4/2/2007 Issue Date: 04/02/2007
Service:
Method: Certified mail 4-d
Cost Per: $ 5.00
5.00
Adkins, John
795 Willow Dale, NW
Bolivar, OH 44612
Tracking No: 71603901984960346600
4/2/2007
Receipt: 20946 Date: 05/08/2007
Iseue Date: 04/02/2007
Service:
Method: Certified mail 4-d
Cost Per: $ 5.00
5.00
Rogers, Laura
1730 Liberty Dr.
Akron, OH 44313
Tracking No: 71603901984960346594
Receipt: 20946 Date: 05/08/2007
Instructions for Service of Subpoena on Laura
Rogers by Certified Mail filed by Defendant
Instructions for Service of Subpoena on John
Adkins by Certified Mail filed by Defendant
Poverty Affidavit Filed by Defendant Receipt:
20946 Date: 05/08/2007
3/2/2005 Motion to Modify Every other Wednesday Night
Parenting Time, Transportation filed by
Defendant Receipt: 20946 Date: 05/0B/2007
3/1/2007
3/1/2009
2/28/2009
Proof
of
05/08/2009
Successful Service
Method : Certified mail 4-d
Issued : 02/16/2007
Service : Civil Case Summons
Served : 12/21/2007
Return : 02/28/2007
On Adkins, John
Signed By : John Adkins
Tracking #: 71603901984960345054
Hearing
Scheduled:
The following event: Application/Motion for
Attorney Fees scheduled for 03/19/2007 at 1:00
pm has been rescheduled as follows:
Event: Application/Motion for Attorney Fees
Date: 04/23/2007 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Bailey, Honorable K. William LOCation:
2/26/2007
2.00
Service
Civil Proof of Service (E-Signature)
Sent on: 03/01/2007 15:52:44
Order for Continuance Receipt: 20946 Date:
Reason : Successful
Comment
2/26/2007
1.00
Room 109
Hearing Scheduled:
The following event: Motion to Modify Visitation
scheduled for 03/19/2007 at 1:00 pm hae been
rescheduled as follows:
Event: Motion to Modify Visitation
Date: 04/23/2007 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Bailey, Honorable K. William Location:
Room 109
2.00
2/23/2009
Motion for a Continuance - Juvenile Nesponsrnie
For Cost
Attorney: Ferguson Esq., David H. (0032038)
Receipt: 20946 Date: 05/08/2007
2/16/2007
Notice
of
2.00
Hearing
Civil Notice of Hearing (E-Signature)
° Sent on: 02/16/2007 16:25120
2/16/2007 Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Application/MOtion for Attorney Fees
Date: 03/19/2007 Time: 1:00 pm
Judge: Bailey, Honorable K. William Location
2/16/2007
Result: Oontinued
02/16/2007
Issue Date:
Service: Civil Case Summons
Method: Certified mail 4-d
Cost Per: $ 5.00
5.00
Adkins, John
795 Willow Dale, NW
Bolivar, OH 44612
Tracking No: 71603901984960345054
Receipt: 20946 Date: 05/08/2007
2/16/2007 Instructions for Service of Subpoena on John
Adkins by Certified Mail filed by Defendant
2/16/2007
2/12/2007
2/12/2007
Motion for Payment of Legal Fees, Revision of
Responsibility for Health Insurance Coverage,
Public Exchange of Children, Repayment of
Uninsured and Extraordinary medical expenses,
Education filed by Defendant Receipt: 20946
Date: 05/08/2007
Notice of Hearing
4.00
Civil Notice of Hearing (E-Signature)
Sent on: 02/12/2007 10:01:07
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Motion to Modify Visitation
Date: 03/19/2007 Time: 1:00 pm
Judge: Bailey, Honorable K. William Location:
Result: Continued
1/24/2007 Successful Service by Personal Service upon
Defendant
Proof of Service - Motion to Appoint Process
Server & Order, Motion for Modification of
Companionship Motion Regarding School - Sherri
P. Becker by Special Process Server and Judge
Bailey, Linda Hoffmann Esq. & David Ferguson
Esq. by Regular Mail
Civil Proof of Service (E-Signature)
Sent on: 01/23/2007 12:26:09
1/23/2009 Order Granting Motion to Appoint Process Server
Receipt: 20832 Date: 04/26/2007 Receipt: 20946 2.00
Date: 05/08/2007
1/17/2007
Deposit
Attorney: Ferguson Eeq., David H. (0032038)
Receipt: 19764 Date: 01/17/2007
1/17/2007 Motion to Appoint Process Server Receipt: 20832
Date:
04/26/2007
63.00
2.00
1/17/2009 Instructions for Service
1/17/2009 Motion to Modify Parental Rights &
Responsibilities
Attorney: Ferguson Esq., David H. (0032038)
Receipt: 20832 Date: 04/26/2007
4/18/2006
Proof
of
Service
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 04/18/2006 08:36:22
4/10/2006 Stipulation Regarding Satisfaction of Judgment
Entry and Waiver of Appeal
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
Attorney: Parker Esq., Thomas M. (0004956)
3/29/2006 Refund to GAL
38.00
3/29/2006 Deposit by Sherri Becker for GAL Receipt: 16537
Date:
03/28/2006
114.32
3/23/2006
Notice of
Fees
Attorney:
Payment by Jeffrey Morrow of His GAL
Spink Esq., Prudence
C. (0009931)
3/2/2006
Accounts Receivable Statement:
Morrow, Jeffrey was sent bill for $169.00.
Printed on 03/02/2006 08:34:49.
3/2/2006
Refund
250.00
Refund
250.00
3/2/2006
3/1/2006 Order for Payment of GAL Fees and for Additional
Fees to Cover Same Receipt: 16539 Date:
2.00
03/28/2006
3/1/2006
Proof
of
Service
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 03/01/2006 13:15:33
Judgment Entry & Orders Receipt: 16521 Date:
03/27/2006 Receipt: 16539 Date: 03/28/2006 30.00
3/1/2006
2/15/2006
Motion for Payment of Guardian ad Litem Fees
Attorney: Spink Esq., Prudence C. (0009931)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
2/15/2006
Final Argument of Plaintiff
Attorney: Parker Esq., Thomas M. (0004956)
2/15/2006
Defendant's Trial Summary Brief
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021090)
2/1/2006
Proof
of
2.00
Service
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 02/01/2006 15:26:09
2/1/2006 Judgment Entry E Order Receipt: 16521 Date:
03/29/2006
1/30/2006
Witness and ExhibitList
Attorney: Parker Esq., Thomas M. ( 0004956)
1/30/2006
Subpoena Served on Michelle Bowman, Amy
McDonald, Carol Frass and Jessica Burke
1/26/2006
Subpoena Served on Det. Tadd navis and Lynn Luna
2.00
Phd.
1/26/2006
Notice of Service of Subpoenas
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
1/26/2006
Witness and Exhibit List Filed by Defendant's
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda ( 0021070)
1/25/2006
Subpoena Served on Jessica Burke, Michelle
Bowman, Caro1 Frass and Amy McDonald
1/25/2006 Notice to Court of Filing Clarification
1/25/2006
Clarification of Page 8 of
Report
Guardian Ad Litem
1/24/2006 Letter Advising Counsel of GAL report filed
2.00
1/24/06
1/24/2006 Letter Advising Counsel of Psych. Report dated
1/12/06
1/10/2006
Hearing Scheduled:
Event; Trial
Date: 01/31/2006 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Bailey, R. William Location:
12/23/2005 Supplement to Motion for Allocation of Parental
Rights and Responsibilities: Shared Parenting 2..00
11/17/2005
Plan
Attorney: Parker Esq., Thomas M. (0004956)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
Proof of Service
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 11/17/2005 13:13:39
11/17/2005 Judgment Entry - Matter Continued to 1/31/06
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
2. 00
11/15/2005 Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Trial
Date: 01/31/2006 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Russo, Dorcas A. Location: Room 156
11/4/2005
Result: Cancelled
Brief in Opposition to Motion for Contemp0
11/4/2005
Brief in Opposition to Motion to Modify
Temporary Support
10/11/2005
Successful Service
Method : Certified mail 4-d
Issued : 10/06/2005
Service : Civil Case Summons For Contempt
Served : 10/07/2005
Return : 10/11/2005
On : Morrow, Jeffrey
Signed By : Jeff Morrow
Reason : Successful
Comment
10/6/2005
10/6/2005
Tracking #: 7160390198491694409
Proof of Service - Motion to Modify Temp
Support, Motion for Contempt, Order to Appear,
Judgment Entry Ordering Psychological Testing
and Notice of Hearing - Jeffrey Morrow by
Certified Mail, Sherri P. Becker,Thomas Parker
Esq., Prudence C. Spink Esq., Linda Hoffmann
Esq. and Judge Bailey by Regular Mail
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 10/06/2005 14:59:24
Issue Date: 10/06/2005
Service; Civil Case Summons For Contempt
Method: Certified mail 4-d
Cost Per: $ 5.00
5.00
Morrow, Jeffrey
7749 Buffham Road
Lodi, OH 44254
Tracking No: 7160390198491694409
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
10/6/2005 Order to Appear for Hearing - Juvenile
Responsible For Cost Receipt: 16521 Date:
03/29/2006
2 . 00
10/6/2005 Judgment Entry Designating Summit Psychological
Associates as Agency to perform parenting
evaluations Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
2.00
10/
/2005
10/5/2005
10/5/2005
Notice of Hearing
Civil Notice of Hearing
Sent on: 10/05/2005 13:32:28
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Temporary Support Hearing
Date; 11/15/2005 Time: 1:00 pm
Judge: Bailey, A. William Location:
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Show Cause Hearing
Date: 11/15/2005 Time: 1:00 pm
Judge: Bailey, K. William Location:
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Show Cause Hearing
Date: 11/15/2005 Time: 1:00 pm
Judge: Shirer, Albert D Location: Room 158
10/3/2005 Praecipe for Service of Motion for Contempt,
'. Notice of Hearing and Order to Appear to
Plaintiff
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
10/3/2005 Motion to Show Cause for Contempt
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
10/5/2005
9/29/2005
Deposit
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
Receipt: 14547 Date: 10/03/2005
38.00
63.00
9/29/2005 Praecipe for Serviceof Motion to Modify
Temporary Support to Plaintiff
9/29/2005 Motion to Modify Temporary Child support
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
9/27/2005 Notice of Appearance
. Attorney: Parker Esq., Thomas
9/22/2005
Proof
of
M.
(0004956)
Service
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 09/22/2005 13:52:43
9/22/2005 Judgment Entry - Companionship Schedule
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
9/21/2005
Proof
of
38.00
2.00
Service
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 09/21/2005 13:19:15
9/21/2005 Judgment Entry - Plaintiff to advise Court by
10/3/05 as to name of counsel or proceed pro se; 4.00
Psychological Evaluations Ordered Receipt:
16521 Date: 03/27/2006
9/21/2005 Denying Motion to Withdraw filed by Plaintiff
( pro se) Receipt: 16521 Date:03/29/2006
2.00
9/19/2005 Proof of Serviceby Regular Mail to Plaintiff,
Judge Bailey, & Attorneys Hoffmann, Spink and
Palmquist
Qivil Proof of Service
Sent on: 09/19/2005 11:47:16
9/19/2005 Judgment Entry to Withdrew Granted
Attorney: Palmquist Esq., James B(0018869)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
9/15/2005
-
Proof
of
2.00
Service
Civil
Proof ofService
Sent on: 09/15/2005 12:49:28
9/15/2005 Judgment Entry Converting Trial into Pre-Tria
filed by Judge Bailey Receipt: 16521 Date:
03/25/2006
2.00
9/13/2005
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Pre-Trial Hearing
Date: 09/19/2005 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Bailey, K. William Location:
9/12/2005 Request for Instructions
Attorney: Spink Esq.. Prudence C. (0009931)
9/7/2005 Supplemental Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Juvenile Responsible For Cost
Attorney: Palmquist Esq., James B(0018869)
-Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
9/22/2005 Proof of Service - Order of Recusal - Prudence
C. Spink Esq., Linda Hoffmann Esq, and James B.
Palmquist Esq. by Regular Mail
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 08/22/2005 11:36:03
8/17/2005 Order of Recusal Receipt: 16521 Date:
2.00
03/27/2006
8/15/2005
Motion
for
Psychological
Evaluation
of
the
Parties
2.00
Attorney: Spink Esq., Prudence C. (0009931)
Receipt: 16521 Date; 03/27/2006
8/9/2005
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
Attorney: Palmquist Esq., James B(0018867)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
7/27/2005
Notice of Hearing
7/27/2005
2.00
Civil Notice of Hearing
Sent on: 07/27/2005 13:23:50
Hearing Scheduled:
Eveht: Motion Hearing for Modification of Child
Support
Date: 09/19/2005 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Russo, Dorcas A. Location: Room 156
Result: Continued
Notice of Filing
Attorney: Palmquist Esq., James B(0018867)
7/27/2005
7/27/2005 Motion for Modification of Temporary Order of
support
Attorney: Palmquist Esq., James B(0018867)
Receipt; 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
2.00
7/27/2005 Notice (of withdrawal of Objections to
Magistrate's Decision)
Attorney: Palmquist Esq., James B(0018867)
6/17/2005 Proof of Service - Magistrate's Order of
Continuance - Prudence C. Spink Esq., James B.
Palmquist Esq. & Linda Hoffmann Esq. by Regular
Mail
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 06/17/2005 09:47:44
6/17/2005 Magistrate's Order of Continuance Receipt:
16521 Date: 03/27/2006
2.00
6/16/2005 proof of Service - Agreed Judgment Entry - Child
Support and Health Insurance - Prudence C. Spink
Esq., James B. Palmquist Esq. and Linda Hoffmann
Esq. by Regular Mail and CSEA by Inter-Office
Mail
6/16/2005
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 06/16/2005 12:29:26
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Final Hearing
Date: 09/19/2005 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Russo, Dorcas A. Location: Room 156
Result: Continued
6/14/2005 Notice to Court of Serving - Defendant's Answers
to Plaintiff's Interrogatories Submitted to
Defendant
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
6/14/2005 Proof of Service - Order Granting Leave to
Answer or Otherwise Respond to Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents - James
B. Palmquist Esq., Prudence C. Spink Esq. and
Linda Hoffmann Esq. by Regular Mail
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 06/14/2005 14:50:14
6/14/'2005 Order Granting Leave to Answer or Otherwise
Respond to Interrogatories and Request for 2,00
Production of Documents Receipt: 16521 Date:
03/27/2006
6/9/2005 Notice to Court of Filing of Transcript
Attorney: Palmquist Esq., James B(0018867)
6/6/2005 Pre-Trial Statement of Defendant
Attorney: Hoffmann Esq., Linda (0021070)
6/.1/2005 Motion to Leave to Answer or Otherwise Respond
to Interrogatories and Request for Production of 4.00
Documents
Palmquist Esq, James B(0018867)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
5/23/2005 Proof of Service by Regular Mail to counsel of
'
Attorney:
record and inter-office to CSEA
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 05/23/2005 08:57:09
5/23/2005 Judgment Entry of Continuance - Juvenile
Responsible For Cost
Attorney: Palmquist Esq, James B (0018867)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
5/20/2005 Motion fora Continuance - Juvenile Responsible
For Cost
Attorney: Palmquist Esq, James B (0018867)
Receipt:16521 Date: 03/27/2006
2.00
2.00
5/20/2005
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Oral Hearing on Objections to Mag.
Decision
Date: 07/25/2005 Time; 11:00 am
jJudge: Lohn, John J Location: Room 109
4/29/2005 Proof of Service by Regular Mail to Counsel of
Record and GAL and Inter-Office to CSEA
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 04/29/2005 13:38:31
4/29/2005 Judgment Entry of Continuance - Juvenile
Responsible For Cost
Attorney: Palmquist Esq, James B (0018867)
Receipt: 16521 na0e: 03/27/2006
4/29/2005
2.00
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Oral Hearing on Objections to mag.
Decision
Date: 05/18/2005 Time: 1:30 pm
Judge: Lohn, John J Location: Room 109
4/29/2005
Result: Continued
Notice of Serving
Attorney: Hoffmann
Esq, Linda
(0021070)
4/28/2005 Motion for a Continuance
... Attorney: Palmquist Esq, James E(0018867)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
2.00
4/27/2005 Notice of Filing - Plaintiff's lnterrogatories
Submitted to Defendant
Attorney: Palmquist Esq, James B(0018867)
4/27/2005
Notice of Appearance
Attorney: Palmquist Esq, James B(0018B67)
4/7/2005 Proof of Service - Judgment Entry Granting
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel - Jeffrey Morrow,
Prudence C, Spink Esq., Ralph A. Berry Jr. Esq.,
Robert Cyperski & CSEA by Regular Mail
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 04/07/2005 09:56:12
Judgment Entry Granting Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
Attorney: Cyperski Esq, Robert H. (0026054)
Receipt: 16521 Date: 03/27/2006
3/30/2005 Agreed Judgment Entry - Child Support and Health
Insurance Receipt: 16275 Date: 03/02/2006
3/28/2005 Proof of Service by Regular Mail to Counsel of
3/28/2005
3/28/2005
Civi1 Proof of Service
Sent on: 03/28/2005 11:16:05
Notice of Hearing
Civi1 Notice of Hearing
Sent on: 03/28/2005 10:50:25
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Oral Hearing on Objections to Mag.
Decision
Time: 3:00 pm
Date: 05/02/2005
Judge: Lohn, John J Location: Room 109
' Result: Continued
3/28/2005 Notice tof Prepartion of Requested Tape for
.. . Objection Hearing
2.00
2.00
16.00
3/28/2005 Order to Provide a Transcript Recerpt: ibz,e
Date: 03/02/2006
3/28/2005
Notice
of
2.00
Hearing
Civil Notice of Hearing
sent on: 03/28/2005 11:49:20
3/23/2005 Duplication of tape recorded hearing Receipt:
16275 Date: 03/02/2006
15.00
3/23/2005 Objection to Magistrate's Decision
Attorney: Cyperski Eeq, Robert H. (0026054) 2.00
Receipt: 12714 Date: 03/23/2005
3/11/2005 proof of Service - Magistrate's Decision with
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Temporary Support and Parenting Time - Linda
Hoffmann Esq., Prudence C. Spink Esq. & Robert
Cyperski Esq, by Regular Mail and CSEA by
. Inter-Office Mai1
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 03/11/2005 14:44:12
3/11/2005 Magistrate's Decision with Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law - Temporary Support and
.... Parenting Time Receipt: 12714 Date: 03/23/2005
3/1Q/2005 Proof of Service Magistrate's Order Appoint
Guardian ad Litem sent to Attys. Hoffmann,
Cyperski and Spink by regular mail
6.00
g
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 03/10/2005 13:33:05
3/10/2005 Magistrate's Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem
Receipt: 12914 Date: 03/23/2005
4.00
2/25/2005 Deposit by Sherri Eecker for GAL Receipt: 12463
Date: 02/25/2005
250.00
2/25/2005 Deposit by Jeffrey Morrow for GAL Receipt:
12462 Date: 02/25/2005
250.00
2/8/2005 Proof of Service - Magistrate's Pre-Trial Order
(Hearing Dates Scheduled Herein) - Linda
Hoffmann Esq. & Robert Cyperski Esq, by Regular
Mail and CSEA by Inter-Office Mail
Civil Proof of Service
Sent on: 02/08/2005 15:05:18
2/8/2005 Magistrate's Pre-Trial Order (Hearing Dates
Scheduled Herein) Receipt: 12714 Date:
03/23/2005 Receipt: 16275 Date: 03/02/2006
2/4/2005
8.00
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Trial
Date: 06/17/2005 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Russo,Dorcas A. Location: Room 156
Result: COntinued
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Final Pre-Trial
Date: 06/06/2005 Time: 2:00 pm
Judge: Russo, Dorcas A. Location: Room 156
2/4/2005 Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Interim Parenting Time Hearing
-Date: 02/25/2005 Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Russo, Dorcas A. Location: Room 156
1/31/2005 Answer to Counterclaim
Attorney: Cyperski Esq, Robert H. (0026054)
2/4/2005
1/20/2005
1/9/2005
Answer & Counterclaim
Es Linda
(0021070)
q,
m ann
Attorney: H off
Receipt: 16274 Date: 03/02/2006 Receipt: 16275
Date: 03/02/2006
Successful Service
Method : Certified mail 4-d
issued : 12/20/2004
Service . Civil Case Summons
Served 1 01/04/2005
Return : 01/07/2005
38.00
On Becker, Sherri P.
Signed By Anthony Valentine
Reason Successful
Comment
Tracking #: 7160390198485795998
1/5/2005 Notice of Hearing - Sherri P. Becker & Robert
Cyperski Esq.
Civil Notice of Hearing
Sent on: 01/05/2005 16:02:12
1/5/2005
.
Hearing Scheduled:
Event: Pre-Trial Hearing
Date: 01/24/2005 Time: 3:30pm
Judge: RUSSO, Dorcas A. LocatiOn: Room 156
12/22/2004
Successful
Service
Method Certified mail 4-d
Issued : 12/20/2004
Service : Civil Case Summons
Served : 12/21/2004
Return 12/22/2004
On : Becker; Sherri P.
Signed By : S. Askew
Reason : Successful
Comment
Tracking #: 7160390198485795999
Proof o f Serv i ce - Com p laint for Custody,
Support, Parenting Time or Shared Farenting;
Affidavit; Custody Affidavit and Summons Sherri P. Becker at Home & Work Address by
Certified Mail and Robert H. Cypereki Esq. by
Regular Mail
Civi1 Proof of Service
Sent on: 12/20/2004 09:51:09
12/20/2004 Summons Served By Certified Mail
Civil Summons
Sent on: 12/20/2004 09:4B:39
12/20/2004 Issue Date: 12/20/2004
Service: Civil Case Summons
Method: Certified mail 4-d
.,.
Cost
Per:
$
5.00
10,00
Becker, Sherri P.
1016 Grace Lane
Seville, OH 44273
TraCking No: 7160390198485795998
-
Becker,
Sherri P.
c/o Ohio College of Massotherapy, Inc.
225 Heritages Woods Drive
Akron, OH 44321
Tracking No: 5160390198485795999
ReCeipt: 16274 Date: 03/02/2006
12/17/2004
Deposit63.00
Attorney: Cypereki Esq, Robert H. (0026054)
Receipt: 11952 Date: 12/20/2004
12/17/2004 Affidavit of Plaintiff Receipt: 12714 Date:
03/23/2005
1.00
12/17/2004 Custody Affidavit Receipt: 12714 Date:
03/23/2005
1.00
12/17/2004 Complaint for Custody, Support, Parenting Time
or Shared Parenting
Attorney: Cyperski Esq, Robert H. (0026054)
Receipt: 16274 Date: 03/02/2006
38.00
Y 10 ^-'`e''ri1: 44
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO
JEFFREY MORROW,
CASE NO. 04 PA 0199
vs.
SHERRI BECKER,
JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendant.
Thiscase is before Judge Mary R. Kovackon the Plaintiff'sobjection
to the Magistrate's Decision of August 30, 2010, which modified the parties'
time schedule. This case is also before the Court on the
'¢ parenting
a^ U Plaintiff's
k,+.^.^^^
Q
objection to the Magistrate's Decision of January 12, 2011and
p
v~j£ a u^ersubsequent
m
p
.
Supplemental Decision of January 18, 2011,bothofwhich
l^^^ o ddres^sed the denial of the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Child Support.
,z ARf
s 3t.... ^ ^
z V- R .r®
The ' YlaintiTY's ob]ectionswerenearaseparateiyqerore
.
ndersigned: Plaintiff Jeffrey Morrow was present at both hearings
epresented by Attorney John C. Ragner. Defendant SherriBeckerwas
the
and
also
resent atboth hearings and representedby Attorney Linda Hoffmann.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff's objections are notwell taken for
THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'SDECISION CONCERNING
^
.
. . . .
.
. .
. .
W
..^ PARENTING TIME. - . ^
x
The parties, who were never married, have beencontinuously litigating
parenting time and support issues since their relationship ended in December
of 2004. TheDefendant has always beenthecustodialparent of the parties'
two minordaughters,Mackenzie(DOB January13;2004)and Morgan (DOB June
21, 2002) . ThisCourtfirst established aparentingtime schedule on March
1,.2006,.inwhich the Plaintiff was granted a modifiedversionofthe Medina
County Standard Parenting Time Schedule.
The Plaintiff
was given parenting
night,andparenting time with Mackenzie from 11:00 AM to 9:00 PM on the same
Sunday that the Plaintiff hadparenting time withMorgan: The Plaintiff was
also granted parenting time with both girls every other Wednesday from 6;00
PM
to
9:00
AM
on
Thursday.
.
.
.
.
In 2007, upon a motion by the Defendant, the Court modified the
scheduleby affording the Plaintiff parenting time as strictly set forthin
the Court's Standard Parenting TimeSchedule. Thus, thePlaintiff's
scheduledmid-week parenting time was reduced from an overnight stay to
Wednesday evening from5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The parties were ordered to
follow "Option 1'! for Thanksgiving and Winter Break, in which each breakis
splitevenly. The only exception to the Standard Parenting Time Schedule in
the 2007 modification wasthe Court's decision not to award any summer
vacation parenting time to thePlaintiff,. . . . .
At some point thereafter,thepartiesagreed on an informal schedule
that was never journalizedasan order of this Court. However,theDefendant
once again moved to modify the parenting time schedule on August 28, 2009.
Asgrounds forthe Motion, the Defendant noted that thePlaintifffrequently
traveled out of the country for long periods of time and that his travels
interfered with his ability to exercise parenting time. The Defendant also
expressed concern over an incident where the Plaintiff did not seek necessary
medical
care
for
Mackenzie.
...
After a hearingat which bothparties testified,a Magistrate granted
theDefendant's Motion. In revising the parties' parenting time schedule,
the Magistrate actually increased the Plaintiff's parenting time. While the
Magistrate eliminatedthe Plaintiff's Wednesday evening mid-week visits, she
increasedthelength of each weekend visit from 6:00 p.m. on Friday to Monday
morning(instead of6:00 p.m.on Sunday) for both children:ThePlaintiffis
required now to deliver the children to schoolon Mondaymornings.Thus,
despite the lossof the three-hour mid-week visits,the Plaintiff's standard
parentingtime increased from four overnights per monthto six overnights per
month.
^
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Withregardtosummer parenting time, the 2007 order prohibited the
Plaintifffromany summer vacation parentingtime: The Magistrate clarified
and expanded this order by stating thatthePlaintiffshall have extended
parenting time as mutually agreed upon by bothparties. Finally, the
Magistrateordered thatthe Plaintiffshallforfeit any parenting time he
misses while traveling out of the country or for which he ismorethas a
half-hour late to the exchange.
2
In his objections, the Plaintiffaccusesthe Magistrate of
demonstrating a bias against him and argues that the Magistrate lacked any
justification for reducing his parentingtime. He further objects to the
Magistrate's orders that require the Plaintiff to forfeit his parenting time
if he is over thirty minutes late for the exchange or if he is out of the
country during his parenting time weekend. Finally, he arguesthat the
Magistrate's Decision lacks clarity with respect to holidaysanddays of
special meaning. After an independent review of the record, the Court finds
that the Plaintiff's objections are not well-taken...
An allocationof parental rights andresponsibilities must serve the
best interests of the minor children subject to the order.R.C. 3109.04.In
response tothePlaintiff'sfirst argument, the Court reiterates that the
modified parenting time scheduleincreased the Plaintiff's parenting time.
Notonly did the Plaintiff's parenting time increase, the newschedule was
designed to ameliorate concernsover the lack ofconsistency in the girls'
lives. Throughout this entire case, theCourtland the Defendant have
expressed concern overthe Plaintiff's failureto consistentlyhonorthe
parenting time schedule.In both the originalMarch 1,2006Judgment Entry
and the April 26, 2007 Judgment Entry modifying the Plaintiff's parenting
time, the Court noted that the Plaintiff did notregularlp exercise all the
parenting time available to him. See Judg. Entry ofMarch1,2006at2;
Judg.Entry of Apri126, 2007 at 2. Inaffirming the 2007 modification, the
Ninth District Court of Appeals noted that"[b]oth parties acknowledged the
importance of a definite schedule forthegirls" and held that the
modification was in the children'sbest interests because "it provided
structure that the children needed." 418..
Unfortunately, however, it appears that the 2007modification did not
ensure stability and structure in the parenting timeschedule. At the July
27,2010hearing before the Magistrate, both parties acknowledged that the
Plaintifffrequently missed mid-week and weekend visitsthroughout2009and
.2410. Most of the missed visitscoincided with the Plaintiff's regular
business trips to China, which have lasted anywhere from ten days to two
weeks at a time. In 2009, the Plaintiff traveled to China at least seven
'This case wasinitially filed in the Medina County Juvenile Court. As the Defendant's son is
employed in that court, a visiting judgewas appointed to this case. During the pendencyof this
action, jurisdiction over parentage cases was transferred to the Medina County Domestic Relations
Court pursuant to R.C. 2301.03(U). For the sakeofclarity, any references to "the Court" will
encompass all prior trial courts and their judges and magistrates that, at any point in time,
presided
over
this
action.
.
.
.
.
.
times, and as of July, 2010, he had made at least four tripsthat year and
indicated plansto returnseveral times beforethe end of December, 2010.
In addition to being out of the country, the Plaintiff testified that
he has missed parenting timewith at least one of the girls or returned the
girls to the
Defendant
early in order to accommodate a varietyof other
events, such as
a flight schedule, jet lag, or an Ohio State footballgame.
Atthe hearing,
the Defendant expressed a concern forthe impact the lack of
consistency has
on the parties' children: "I told [the Plaintiff] Ididn't
think it was very healthy for him to be disrupting the girls like this
because the girls do want a schedule regular [sic] where they know something
isgoingon. That's how theyoperate,
The Plaintiff, however, does
bothof them." Tr. at 35.
not outwardly share the
Defendant's
concern
mid-week
andweekendparenting timethroughout2009and 2010:Although the
Plaintiff assured the Court that the frequency andduration of his travels to
China would both
decrease
in 2011,
when asked whether he couldplam any
future trips to Chinatoavoid missing
his
Plaintiff replied, "I can't honestly sit here
weekend parenting time, the
and say yes when I don't think
it's going to be entirely possible." Tr. at 112. After setting forth his
plan for increased parenting time with the girls, including mid-week
overnightvisitsevery Wednesday, the Plaintiff qualified his desire for
regularmid-weekvisits by stating that °[y]ouknow, I don't want to sit here
andtalk likeI'm going to be just available every single Wednesday when
honestly thingsare not stable quite
yet."
Tr. at
. 109. Neitherthe
Plaintiff's actions nor testimony demonstrate a willingnessto honor a
consistentparentingtimeschedule.
.
..
.
In his objection,thePlaintiff cites the missive of LocalRuleVI to
"ensure that minor children have frequent andconsistentcontactwithboth
parents."[emphasis added] The Court finds that the sole inhibitor of
frequent and consistent contact with his daughtersis the Plaintiff himself.
Given that the Plaintiff's own testimony indicates a strong likelihood that
his work and personal needs will continue to interfere with the parenting
time schedule, the Court certainly does not find that granting the Plaintiff
mid-week visits isinthe children's bestinterests.
Instead,the Court finds thateliminating mid-week visits furthers the
children's best interests.The modified parentingtime schedule accommodates
both the Plaintiff's and Defendant's work schedules.Plaintiff is now able to
travel for up to eleven days at atime without disrupting the parenting time
children. The cited portion of the transcript does not describe the one time
the Plaintiff was late, it describes the one timethe Plaintiff completely
missed his parenting time without so much as a phone call to the
Defendant.
At the hearing, the Plaintiff did not address the Defendant's
complaints
concerning his tardiness. Asthe Defendant's testimony was not disputed, the
Court finds the testimony credible. Not, only is the restriction a
orderof this Court, it is particularly warranted and in the
standard
children's best
interests under the specific facts of thiscase.
Finally, with the exception of one typographical error, the
no
merit
in thePlaintiff's. argument
thatthe Magistrate's-Decision
is
ambiguous in relationto holidays,school vacations, and periods of parenting
time that extend beyondthePlaintiff's regular weekend visits. With respect
to these
special
categories of parenting time, the Magistrate ordered as
follows:
Plaintiff should Yeceivenoextendedparentingtime unless agreed to by
the Plaintiff. This includes Christmas break, spring break, and
summer. The parties should alternate holidays and days of special
meaning as agreed. Ifthey cannot agree, they should follow the
Court's Standard Parenting Timeorderfor these special days.
The Court finds that the second mention of the "Plaintiff" in the first
quoted sentence is an error. The sentenceshould read, "Plaintiff should
receive no extended parenting timeunlessagreedtoby theDefendant." The
Court finds the Plaintiff'sobjection well-taken to the extent that the
second"Plaintiff" in the first sentenceshall be changedto"Defendant."
The order as modifiedherein very clearlyestablishesthatholidays and
days of special meaningare to be divided as the parties agree or, if no
agreement can be reached,pursuant to theCourt's Standard Parenting Time
order. The term "holiday" is not synonymous with"schoolvacation;" the
order limits the application of the Standard Parenting Time orderto actual
holidays. There is nothing ambiguous about the Magistrate's treatment of...
holidays in the parenting time schedule, and nothing in the Magistrate's
Decision denies thePlaintiffthe opportunitytoceIebrateholidays and days
of
special
meaning
with
his
children.
.
.
.
...
.
.
Likewise, the orderpermitsthePlaintiff°extended parentingtime"as
agreed upon by the parties: "Extended parenting time"is any period longer
thanthe extended weekend he is entitledtounder the orderedschedule.The
order instructs the parties toobserve theirregularalternatingweekend
schedule without any regard for the school calendar. The onlyexceptions to
this schedule are holidays and days of special meaning;which are allocated
by agreement of the parties or the Standard Parenting Time Order. The Court
finds that the plain meaning of the Magistrate's Decision regarding holidays,
daysofspecial meaning, and extended parenting time is clear and lacks any
ambiguity. Moreover, the Court notes that thisorderalsorepresents an
expansion of the Plaintiff's prior parenting timeorder, as the previous
order denied the Plaintiff any extended summer parenting time.
Furthermore, the Court rejectsthePlaintiff's contention that
providing extended parenting time as agreed upon by the parties is equivalent
to giving the Defendant solediscretion over whether the Plaintiff can
exerciseextended parenting time. The Plaintiff expressed frustration with
caringfor all of Mackenzie's needs.;He admitted that has not been actively
assisting in potty training Mackenzie and cannotcommunicate with her through
signlanguage. Moreover, during his last extended summer visit with the
girls, the Plaintiff demonstrated difficultly immediately treating
Mackenzie'smedicalneeds. Thetestimonyis undisputedthat, on the second
dayof the Plaintiff's week-longsummer parenting time, Mackenzie fell ill
with synovitis. When visiting the girls on that Tuesday atMorgan's
gymnasticsclass,the Defendant noticedthat Mackenzie was in asignificant
amount of pain and hadlostthe ability to walk. The Defendant mentioned
this to the Plaintiff and requested that he take her to seethedoctor
immediatelythenext morning.When the Defendant called the Plaintiff from
work the next day to follow up, the Plaintiff had failed to take Mackenzie to
the doctor and expressed ambivalence about her medical condition.He refused
the Defendant'srequestto immediately rush her to the emergency room.
Instead, the Plaintiff dropped Mackenzie off at the Defendant's workplace so
the Defendant could obtain medical treatment for her daughter (at the expense
of
her
workobligations).
.
.
.
. While there is no dispute that the Plaintiff's care of Mackenziedid
not cause or bontributeto the synovitis, the failure of the Plaintiff to
promptly seek medical treatment for Mackenzie causesthis Court to question
the Plaintiff's ability to place his daughters' immediate needsbefore his
own. TheCourt finds thatit is in the best interests of the parties'
children to provide the Plaintiffwithextendedparenting time only as the
parties agree.
Upon hearing the arguments of the parties and reviewing the Court's
file, the Court grants the Plaintiff's objection to thetypographicalerror
onpage five of the Magistrate's Decision. The Court overrules the remainder
of the Plaintiff's objections. The Magistrate's Decisionof August 30, 2010
is affirmed subject to themodification discussed herein.
II. THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO MODIFY CHILD
.. . . . . ^. ^ . . ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ . . . .
^.. ^ SUPPORT.
The Plaintiff also raises several objections to the Magistrate's
Decisionof January 12, 2011 and her supplemental Decision of January 18,
2011.After independentlyreviewingtherecord, the Courtdoes not find the
Plaintiff'sobjections to be well-taken.
THE MAGISTRATE DID NOT VIOLATETHE PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS BY FAILING TOCONTINUETHEHEARING.
As the Ninth
DistrictCourt of Appeals recently
denial of a request for more
time violates due process
fails to offer evidence or is compelled
even if the party
to defend without counsel."
v.Uatighan;Medina App. No. 10CA0014-M, 2010 Ohio 5928
v. Sarafite
observed, "not every
9[ 9,
Vaughan
citing
Ungar
2d 92L
(1964), 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S. Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.
Court must balance any potential prejudice to the moving party
against
The
the
Court's right to control its docket and thepublic interest in the timely and
efficient dispatch of justice. Id.
Specifically, the Ninth District considered the following
factors:
The length of thedelay requested; whether other continuances
have beenrequested and received; the.,.inconvenience to litigants,
witnesses, opposingcounseland thecourt; whether the requested delay
is for legitimate reasons orwhether itis dilatory, purposeful, or
contrived; whether the defendant contributed to thecircumstance which
gives rise to the request for a continuance; and other relevant
Id..
factors, depending onthe unique facts of eachcase.
. Afterreviewingthesefactors, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff's dueprocess rights were not violated by the denial of the
Plaintiff's August 2, 2010 Motion to Continue.
This Motion was originally filed onAugust4, 2009 bythePlaintiff.
At a pretrial conducted on October 23, 2009, the Court set a trial date of
February 24, 2010.. Parties exchanged final witness and exhibit lists two
weeks
prior
to
the
original
trial
date.
.
..
. On the scheduled day of the trial, the Plaintiff filed what would be
the first of three motions to continue: The Plaintiff's first two motions to
continue weregranted, and the trialwas ultimately rescheduled from February
24, 2010 to August 10, 2010:During that sixmonth delay, and despite
already having filed their witness and exhibit lists, the parties continued
to exchange discovery and filedsupplemental witness and exhibit lists. See
Def.Mtn. to Continue, May 7, 2010
( stating that discovery began in thefall
of 2009 and was ongoing as of the date
of the
Defendant's Motion): In
addition to hisoriginalexhibit list of February11,2010, the Plaintiff
subsequently filed two supplementalexhibit listsin August of2010. Despite
beinguntimely, both of these exhibit lists were filed inthe record. When
the Plaintiff moved for both a third continuance and leave to file a third
supplemental exhibit list, the Magistrate denied the Plaintiff's requests.
This Court must ensure that cases areresolved in a timely fashion.
The parties' financial circumstances can fluctuate on a dailybasis,placing
child support modification cases at risk oflingering discovery in
perpetuity. If given the opportunity, there are always additional financial
documents for counsel to demand and informationto exchange. At some point,
the Court must cutoff the exchange of information and force the parties to
proceed.
The record demonstrates that theparties' behavior required the Court
to firmlyclose the discovery window. The parties weregiven ample
opportunityover the course of a full year to engage in the discovery process
and prepare
for trial.
The
overasix-month time period,
Plaintiff
filed
three different exhibit lists
twoof which were
submitted within eight days
of the trial. Although the Magistrate
the Plaintiff's request to file
afourth supplemental exhibit list,
theMagistrategranted considerable
leewayinadmitting exhibitsattrial
regardlessofwhether they were
listed
on an exhibit list. Tr. at 68.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff'schoice to retainnewcounsel on the eve of
trial does not justify anotherdelayin the final hearing date. Mr. Ragner
is the sixth attorney who has made an appearance in this case on behalf of
the Plaintiff since the initial Complaint was filed in 2004.On two
occasionsprior to2010, the Plaintiff retained new counsel within two weeks
of a significant hearingdate.2 On each of those occasions,theCourt
accommodated the Plaintiff's choice to switch attorneys by delaying the final
hearing. The Plaintiff'stiming and history of seeking new counsel
2 on April 28, 2005, the Plaintiff's first attorney of record withdrew five days prior to a
hearing date. His second attorney immediately filed for a continuance in light of hislimited
familiarity with the case. The Plaintiff's second attorney of record moved towithdraw on August
7, 2005, only four months after being retainedand less than two weeks prior to the final
hearing.Once again, the final hearing date was continued to accommodate the Plaintiff's change
in counsel.
9
immediately before a court date raises the Court's concerns of a possibly
dilatory
motive.
.
.
.
The Court finds that thedenial of the Plaintiff's third Motion to
Continue did not result in anyprejudice. Moreover, given the Plaintiff's
history inthis case, the Court's interestsin controlling its docket
outweighthealleged harm suffered by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's due
process concerns are unfounded.
B. THE MAGISTRATEbID NOT ERR IN CALC[JLATING CHILD SUPPORT
The Plaintiff objects to numerous components of the Magistrate's child
support calculation. As explained herein, the Court does not findthat any
of the Plaintiff's objections to the child support order have merit...
. 1. THE MAGISTRATE DID NOT MISCALCULATE THE PLAINTIFF'S SALARY
ThePlaintiff erroneously argues that R.C. 3119:05(B)requires the
Court to deduct the amountofthe child support order at issue from the
obligor'sgross income prior to calculating the final order. This is a
misreading ofthe statute. R.C_3119.05(B) clearly orders adeduction for
all prior court-ordered child support for other children not subject to the
order being calculated.
Permitting an obligor to deduct the amount of the order at issue from
his income prior to the calculation of the order is essentially giving the
obligor a credit for his payment of theorder. That is notwhatthe statute
intended to do. The child supportworksheet is designed to consider all
householdincomeavailable for the support of the child.R.C. 3119.05(B)
codifiestheOhio public policy that a previously court-orderedchild support
payment should not count towards income available for the support of a
subsequent child. That is not the case here - rather the obligorseeks a
credit for hispayment for thesupportof thechild subject of thisorder.
The Plaintiff also objects to the inclusion of the value of the
Plaintiff's work-related benefits in his gross income. The Magistrate
properly considered work-related benefits when computing the Plaintiff's
annual salary for child support purposes.. . . . .
The definition of "gross income" is expansive and includes all
variations of regular income. See
Merkel v. Merkel
(MontgomeryCty.1988),
51 Ohio App..':3d 110, 113, 554 N.E.2d 1346 ("Under the factsof this case, we
find that the receipt of free housing is a significant benefit for the
appelleeand that it would be inequitable forthe trial courtnot to consider
such afactor in determining his total gross income.");
Kiehborthv.
Kiehborth (Delaware Cty. 2006),169Ohio App. 3d 308,.169 Ohio App. 3d 308.
10
It is irrelevant whether the Plaintiff is a salaried employee or selfemployed; courts have found thatthe - value of in-kind employment benefits
shall count as gross income regardless of the obligor's position. See
Merkel, supra at 112.
Asthe Plaintiff notes inhis ownbrief, thesebenefits
would ceaseif the Plaintiff left his employment. Thisfact underscores that
thesebenefits, just as his salary, areconditioned on his continued
employment and are designed, in part, as repayment for his services to the
company.
Cf. Peterman v. Peterman,
HancockApp.No.5-2000-11, 2000 Ohio
1895 at *16 (declining to include the monthly value of the appellant'srentfreecondo in her gross income because "the living arrangement was wholly
unrelated to [appellant's]job.") Therefore, it was reasonable toinclude
the value of these benefits in the Plaintiff's gross income.
The Plaintiff further objectsto the "imputation" of an annual income
of$143,622. His objections to this figure are allsomewhat related and will
be addressed together. Whencalculatinga child support amount, the Court
mustfirstdeterminetheparties' respectivegross annual incomes. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Court °imputed" him income of $143,622.This is
incorrect. Imputed income is potential income that the Court finds a
voluntarily underemployed party is capable of earning.
Rock v. Cabral
(1993), 67 OhioSt. 3d 108, 110, 616 N.E.2d 218. The Magistrate's child
support calculation was not based on potential income; rather, the $143,622
figure was derived from the average of his
actual earnings in 2008,2009, and
projected income in 2010. The 2010 income was based on the Plaintiff's own
testimony of his salary draw of $75,000plusthe value of the in-kind
benefits as discussedsupra. R.C. 3119.05(H) permits the Court to average
the Plaintiff's income if appropriate. The Court findsthat the income
figure usedfor the purpose of calculating child support was based on the
Plaintiff's salary history, whichwas appropriately averaged over the
preceding three years due to itssignificantfluctuations..
The Plaintiff compares hissituation with that of the obligor in
McGuirev.
McGuire,Bcioto App,No.01CA2789, 2002 Ohio 1061.
In McGuire,
thecourtfound that income averaging was inappropriate where the obligor's
income was "fixed for theforeseeable future" as a result of the obligor's
severe accident. The resulting disability lefttheobligorphysically unable
to earn any income other than hisdisability benefits.Id. at *2.
Inthe instant case,the limitedearning capacity of the Plaintiff is
lesscertain. The CourtispainfuIly aware ofthecurrent economic climate.
However, economic conditions are fluid; simply because the Plaintiff's
11
business is currently experiencing a slump does not mean these conditions.are
permanent or fixed for the near future. Unlike the obligor in
McGuire,
the
Plaintiff is not under any physical burden that prevents him from performing
his job. Given the variability in his income over the last three years, and
the lack of evidence that the Plaintiff's reduced income is "fixed for the
foreseeable future," the Court finds that averaging the Plaintiff's income is
appropriate and reasonable.3
Finally, the Plaintiff objects to theapplication of R.C. 3119.04(B) to
the parties' child support calculation. Quixotically, the Plaintiff argues
that, "[a]lthough income averaging might be appropriate in certain
situations, a court cannot then take that average income over a period of
years and apply it to the child support calculationsand override the
$150,000 statutory cap." P1. Br. at 18. Not surprisingly, the Plaintiff
providesno legal support for this argument. . .
.. Achild supportcalculation is based on theparties'gross incomes.
Chapter 3119 provides various methods of computingaparty's gross income
when the party's sources of income are more complex than a typicalsalaried
employee. As discussed earlier,the Magistrateemployedthe income-averaging
method as authorized in 3119.05(H) to determine the Plaintiff's actual gross
income. Once it establishes each party's annual gross income, the Court must
next determine the amount of the combined support obligations. See R.C.
3119.022, line 17a of the worksheet. The combined support amount is taken
directly from a table created by the Ohio legislature and codified in R.C.
3119.021. The amountof the support obligationisbaseddirectly on the
parties' combined household income. Therequired level of support is then
allocated toeach party in proportion to his or her share of the total amount
of household income. See R.C. 3119.022, lines 16 and 18.
The table created by the Ohio legislatureonlylists support levels for
households making up to $150,000. If theparties' combined gross income exceeds
$150,000, R.C. 3119.04(B) gives theCourt the discretion to calculate a support
amount "necessary to maintain for the children the standard of living they would
have enjoyed had the marriage continued." Freeman v.
Freeman,
Wayne App. No.
07CA0036, 2007 Ohio 6400 at 4 23. The Court is notrequired to make special
findingssupporting the support amount unless the order is less than the statutory
' in fact, thePlaintiff's accountant testified that the Plaintiff's business was in much better
financial shape in 2009 than in 2008, indicating that the business' financial situation may be
improving. Tr. at 95, 110.
support amount for combined incomes of $150,000. R.C. 3119.04(B); see also
Freeman,
supra
at
$
22...
.
:
.
.
In this case, the Magistrate appropriately considered the standard of
living enjoyed by the children priortothe parties'split,and calculated the
parties' combined supportobligationbeyond $150,000 at 10.5% of their combined
householdincome. This figure is reasonable and less than the ratio of support to
household income reflected at the highest end of the statutory table. R.C.
3119.021; see also Freeman, supra at 4 24 (noting that the ratio of statutory
supportto household income in a household with two children and $150,000 of
combined incomeis14.6%).Therefore, the Court finds that the Magistrate's
calculation of child support pursuant to R.C. 3119.04(B) is appropriate,
reasonable, and based on the evidence presented at the hearing.
2. THE MAGISTRATE DID NOT MISCALCULATE
THE DEFENDANT'S SALARY
Whilethe definition of "gross income"is expansive, it.nonetheless
excludes"[n)onrecurring orunsustainable income or cash flow items." R.C.
3119.01(C)(7)(e).The Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate erred in failing
to consider "$27,000 of unaccounted for income that Ms. Becker made in 2008."
P1.Br. at 6. Because there is no evidence that thisincomeis recurring or
sustainable income, itisinappropriate for the Court to include this amount
in the Defendant'sgross income whencalculating childsupportpayments.
The"unaccounted for income" the Plaintiff references are the deposits
theDefendantmade into her checking account in2008.On crossexamination,
the Plaintiff's counsel questioned the Defendant extensively about the source
of each deposit. While the Defendant could not recall the exact source of
each amount,she did explain thatshe receivedtwo one-time cash bonuses in
2008forher exemplary workperformance. These bonuses were a reward for her
designation as °employee of the month" and"employee of the year," and were
reported on her tax returns. She also attributed a portion of these deposits
totax refunds and child support payments she received from the Plaintiff, as
well as rent received from leasingaresidential property the Defendant owns..
. All of these monies were appropriately considered by the Magistrate.
As the bonuses were reported as taxable income, they were included in the
Magistrate's averageof the Defendant's previous three years of income.
However, because they are not recurring or sustainable sources of income, it
is inappropriate to inflate her annual income by this amount every year.
With regardtothe rental property, the Defendant testified that the rental
income islessthan the Defendant's monthly mortgagepayment. Therefore,
this is not revenue that should be added to her gross income.
The Defendant repeatedly stated that her sole sources of income were
from her two jobs: a full-time position as a nurse and a part-time position
in student services at Hamrick School. The Plaintiff did not present any
evidence contradicting thistestimonyor demonstratingthat the Defendant
received any additional sourceof regular revenue or income.Moreover,
although the Defendant could not explain the source of some of herchecking
account deposits, the various forms of revenue she cited in 2008
approximatelyequalthe amount of cash the Plaintiff concluded was deposited
in her account in2008: Therefore, the Court finds theDefendant's
explanation credible. Withoutanyevidence refuting thesourcesofthe
questioned deposits, it is inappropriate for this Court to attribute any
additional income to theDefendant..
At thehearingbefore this Court, the Plaintiff also objected to
averaging the Defendant's income.The Defendanttestified before the
Magistratethat thenumber of hours she worksfor Hamrick School in her parttime position fluctuates. As noted supra, the Defendant has also received
one-timebonuses for her performance asanemployee. Therefore, the Court
does not find that it is inappropriatetoaveragethe Defendant's income for
thepurpose of determining her gross income. See R.C. 3119.05(H).
The Court finds that the income attributed to the both parties in the
Magistrate's child supportcalculationis accurate and supported by the
evidence presented before the Magistrate.
.
.
:
III. THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN CONTEMPT
WITHHOLDING.
OF AN ORDER TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT VIA WAGE
objects tothe
Magistrate's finding of contempt for his
The Plaintiff
failureto pay his
child
support obligation through wagewithholding. He
mistakenly belie es that he was never ordered to pay child support through wage
withholding.
When the
Plaintiff's
support order
was first
established in this case
on
March 30, 2005, the Plaintiff was orderedto "paychildsupportin the amount of
$803.74"^per^^month
per
child .. by wage withholding throughthe Ohio Child
Support Payment Central . . Support shall continue until further order of the
Court."Agreed Judg. Entry at 2. This order wasnever vacated bya subsequent
order of this Court_ While the amount of the Plaintiff'schild support order may
have been subsequently modified by the Court, themechanism by which the Plaintiff
14
was ordered to pay was not. Furthermore, R.C. 3105.21 and 3121.03 require the
Plaintiff to pay child support by wage withholding.
The Court further finds that the Magistrate was justified in levying afine
against the Plaintiff conditioned on his subsequent compliance with the wage
withholding order. As the president of his employer company, the Plaintiff
possesses the power to execute the wage withholding order andwillfully ignored
the 2005 order and relevant statutory requirements. He failed to present any
explanation for his disregard of the wage withholding requirement other than his
mistaken belief that it did not apply to him. Therefore, the Plaintiff's
objection to the Magistrate's finding of contempt is not we11-taken. .. .
The Courtfindsthat the Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate's
Decisions ofJanuary12, 2011 and January 18, 2011 are not well-takenand
hereby denied. The Magistrate's Decisions of January 12, 2011 and January
18, 2011arehereby adopted as an Order of this Court.
It is therefore ordered as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall continueto pay $2,154.95 per month plus 2%
processing charge.
2. Plaintiff in contempt forfailing to establish wage withholding
as ordered by this Court and pursuant to the OhioRevised Code.
For his contempt Plaintiff shall pay a fine of $250
3. In order to avoid paying the fine Plaintiffmust begin wage
withholding on his wages from OCMand OCMOnline as previously
ordered within thirty (30) days of the date of this judgment
entry. . .. . . . . : . . . .
4. Therewillbea purge hearing before Judge Mary R. Kovack
to determine
onJune24, 2011 at 9:30until 9:45 a.m.
whether Plaintiff has purged himself of contempt.
Plaintiff is cautioned that he must appear or a capias will
issue for his arrest. . . .
5. Defendant and her counselare awarded $575 in attorneyfees
and court costs. Plaintiff should payto Defendant and her
counsel $575 within thirty (30)days ofthejudgmententry.
If Plaintiff paysasordered, no interest shall attach. If
Plaintiff fails to pay as ordered, interest shall attachat
the statutory rate for any amount due andowing from the
date of judgment. . .. . . .
6. The Plaintiff's April 19, 2011 Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is set for
hearingbeforeMagistrate Owen on July 22, 2011 at 3:00
. . .
P.M.
The Court finds that Civ. R.75(I) pertains specifically
to the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Pursuant
to Civ. R.75(I), a restraining order shall not issue to
protect a child unless a party demonstratesthat the child
"is about to suffer physical abuse, annoyance, or bodily
injury by the other party.°Id. at(2).
The Court finds that the Plaintiff's Motion and
accompanying Affidavit did not meet the threshold standard
setforth in Civ. R. 75(I) justifying the immediate
issuance of a restrainingorder. The Plaintiff did not
provide any explanationas to why his daughter's visits
with a counselorwouldcausethechildtosuffer abuse,
annoyance, or bodily injury.
Moreover, Local Rule 4.03(B) states that emergency ex
parte orders will only be granted "where there are exigent
circumstances that may result in irreparable harm for which
there is no other adequate remedy."
The Defendant is currently the sole custodian of the
child with legal authority to makedecisions concerning the
child's mental and physical health. . ..
Moreover, the Defendant disclosed on the record in the
hearing on July 27, 2010 in the presence of the Plaintiff
and his counsel that the child was seeing a psychologist.
Tr. at 44. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion nine months
later and accompanying Affidavit did not presentany
exigent circumstance warranting emergency relief. In
accordance with Local Rule 4.3, the matter is set for
hearing as soon as practicable.
All childsupportand spousal support under this order shall be
withheld or deducted from the income or assets ofthe obligor pursuant to a
withholding or deduction notice or appropriate Court order issued in
accordance with Chapters 3119, 3121, 3123,.and.3125 of the Revised Code or a
withdrawal directive issued pursuant to Sections 3123.24 to 3123.38 of the
RevisedCode and shallbeforwarded to the Obligee in accordance with
Chapters 3119, 3121, and3125of the Revised Code.[PerO.R.C. 3121.27(A)]
.
.
.
.
.
NOTICE
EACH PARTY TO THIS SUPPORT ORDER MUST NOTIFY THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY IN WRITING OF HIS OR HER CURRENT MAILING ADDRESS, CURRENT RESIDENCE
ADDRESS, CURRENT TELEPHONE NUMBER, CURRENT DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER,AND OF
ANY CHANGES IN THAT INFORMATION. EACH PARTY MUST NOTIFY THE AGENCY OF ALL
CHANGES UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE FROM THE COURT: IF YOU ARE THE OBLIGOR UNDER A
CHILD SUPPORT ORDER AND YOU FAIL TO MAKE THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATIONS, YOU MAY
BE FINED UP TO $50.00 FOR AFIRSTOFFENSE, $100.00 FOR A SECOND OFFENSE. IF
YOU AREAN OBLIGOR OR OBLIGEE UNDER ANY SUPPORT ORDER AND YOU WILLFULLY FAIL
TO MAKE THE REQUIREDNOTIFICATIONS,YOUMAY BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND
BE SUBJECTED TO FINES UP TO $1,000.00 AND IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
NINETY (90) DAYS.
16
IF YOU ARE AN OBLIGOR AND YOU FAIL TO MAKE THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATIONS, YOU
MAY NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST YOU:
IMPOSITIONOF LIENS AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY; LOSS OF YOURPROFESSIONAL OR
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE, DRIVER'S LICENSE, OR RECREATIONAL LICENSE; WITHHOIDING
FROM YOUR INCOME; ACCESS RESTRICTION AND DEDUCTIONFROM YOUR ACCOUNTS IN
FINANCIALINSTITUTIONS;ANDANY OTHER ACTION PERMITTED BY LAWTOOBTAIN MONEY
FROM YOU TO SATISFY YOUR SUPPORT OBLIGATION. [PerO.R.C.3121.29)
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
.
.
.
.
i
^
Judje Mary R. Kovack
cc: John C. Ragner, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff
Linda Hoffmann, Esq., Counsel for Defendant
mrk/jgm
17
.
..
CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
SOLE RESIDENTIAL PARENT OR SHARED PARENTING ORDER
Date: Jan 03, 2011
Names of Parties:
Case No.:
Sherri Becker
Jeffrey Morrow Judge:
The following parent was designated as the
residential parent and legal custodian: Mother Father X Shared
--- -- - --No. of Minor Children 2
COLUMN II COLUMN III
COLUMN I
MOTHER
FATHER
Ia. Annual gross income from employment or,
143,622
COMBINED
49,954
when determined appropriate by the court or
agency, average annual gross income from
employment over a reasonable period of years
(Exclude overtime, bonuses, self-employment
income, or commissions)
lb. Amount of overtime, bonuses and commissions
FATHER MOTHER
Year 3 (Three years ago) 0 0
0
Year 2 (Two years ago) 0
Year 1 (Last calendar year) 0 0
AVERAGE
0
0
(Include in Col. I and/or Col: II the average of the three years or the year 1 amount, whichever is
less, if there exists a reasonable expectation that the total earnings from overtime and/or bonuses
during the current calendar year will meet or exceed the amount that is the lower of the average of
the threeyears or the year 1 amount. If, however, there exists a reasonable expectation that the
total earnings from overtime/bonuses during the calendar year will be less than the lower of the
average of the three years or the year 1 amount, include the amount reasonably expected to be
earned this year.)
2. For Self-Employment Income:
a. Gross receipts from business
b. Ordinary and necessary business expenses
c. 5.6% of adjusted gross income or the actual
marginal difference between the actual rate paid
by the self-employed individual and the FICA rate
0
d. Adjusted gross income from self-employment
(Subtract the sumbf 2b and 2c from 2a)
3. Annual income from interest and dividends
(whether or not taxable)
4. Annual income from unemployment compensation
5. Annual income from workers' compensation,
disability insurance benefits, or Social Security
Disability/Retirement benefits
6. Other annual income
a. Other Taxable Income
b. Cash Perks
c. Spousal support received
0
0
0
0
JFS 07768 (Rev. 8/2008)© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 6
Worksheet: Sole/Shared
Date: ]an 03, 2011
Case No.:
7a. Total annual gross income
(add lines la, lb, 2d & 3-6)
7b. Health insurance maximum (multiply line 7a
by 5%)
COLUMN I
COLUMN II COLUMN III
FATHER
MOTHER COMBINED
143,622
49,954
7,181
2,498
ADJUSTMENTS TO INCOME
8. Adjustment for minor children born to or
adopted by either parent and another parent
who are living with this parent; adjustment does
not apply to stepchildren (number of children
times federal income tax exemption less child
support received, not to exceed the federal tax
exemption)
9. Annual court-ordered support paid for other children
10. Annual court-ordered spousal support paid to
any spouse or former spouse
11. Amount of local income taxes actually paid or
estimated to be paid
12. Mandatory work-related deductions such as union
dues, uniform fees, etc. (Not including taxes, Social
Security or retirement)
0
2,872
0
999
a. Mandatory Work Related/Other Deduction
b. Mandatory Work Related/Other Deduction
13. Total gross income adjustments (add lines 8 2,872 999
through 12)
14a. Adjusted annual gross income (subtract line
13 from line 7a)
140,750 48,955
14b. Cash medical support maximum (If the amount
on line 7a, Col. I, is under 150% of the federal 7,038 2,448
poverty level for an individual, enter $0 on line
14b, Col. I. If the amount on line 7a, Col. I; is
150% or higher of the federal poverty level for
an individual, multiply the amount on line 14a,
Col. I, by 5% and enter this amount on line 14b,
Col. I. If the amount on line 7a, Col. II, is under
150% of the federal poverty level for an
individual, enter $0 on line 14b, Col. II. If the
amount on line 7a, Col. II, is 150% or higher of
the federal poverty level for an individual,
multiply the amount on line 14a, Col. II, by 5%
and enter this amount on line 14b, Col. II.)
JFS 07768 (Rev. 8/2008) © 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 6
Worksheet: Sole/Shared
Date: Jan 03, 2011 COLUMN I
COLUMN II COLUMN III
Case No.: FATHER
MOTHER COMBINED
189,705
15. Combined annual income that is basis for child
support order (Add line 14a, Col. I and Col. II)
16. Percentage of parent's income to total income:
a. Father (divide line 14a, Col. I, by line 15, Col. III)
b. Mother (divide line 14a, Col. II; by line 15; Col. III)
17a. Basic combined child support obligation
(From schedule on income up to $150,000 Amounts between schedule values are calculated)
17b. Support on Income over $150,000
74.19%
25.81%
21,971
4,169
Income for which support is to be applied 189,705
Percent to be used on income over $150,000 10.50%
26,140
17c. Total child support obligation
18. Annual support obligation per parent
a. Father-Multiply line 17c, Col. III by line 16a
b. Mother-Multiply line 17c, Col. III by line 16b
19,393
6,747
19. Annual child care expenses for the children
who are the subject of this order that are
work-, employment training-, or educationrelated, as approved by the court or agency
(deduct tax credit from annual cost, whether
or not claimed)
a. Less federal child care tax credit
0
8,797
0
(1,200)
b. Less OH child care tax credit
0
0
c. Net child care costs
0
7,597
4,356
1,509
1,954
0
20a. Marginal, out-of-pocket costs, necessary to
provide for health insurance for the children
who are the subject of this order (contributing
cost of private family health insurance, minus
the contributing cost of private single health
insurance, divided by the total number of dependents covered by the plan, including the children
subject of the support order, times the number
of children subject of the support order)
20b. Cash medical support obligation (enter the
amount on line 14b or the amount of annual
health care expenditures estimated by the United
States Department of Agriculture and described in
section 3119.30 of the Revised Code, whichever
amount is lower)
21. ADJUSTMENTS TO CHILD SUPPORT WHEN HEALTH INSURANCE IS PROVIDED:
Father (Only if obligorbr shared parenting)
a. Additions: Line 16a times the sum of 6,756
amounts shown on line 19c, Col. II and
line 20a, Col. II
c. Subtractions: Line 16b times sum of 1,124
amounts shown on line 19c, Col. I and
line 20a, Col. I
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. AII rights reserved.
Page 3 of 6
Worksheet: Sole/Shared
Date: ]an 03, 2011
COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN III
FATHER
Case No.:
MOTHER COMBINED
Mother (Only if obligor or shared parenting)
b. Additions: Line 16b times the sum of amounts 1,124
shown on line 19c, Col. I and line 20a, CoL I)
d. Subtractions: Line 16a times sum of 6,756
amounts shown on line 19c, Col. II and
line 20a, Col. II
22. OBLIGATION AFTER ADJUSTMENTS TO CHILD SUPPORT WHEN HEALTH INSURANCE
IS PROVIDED:
a. Father: Line 18a plus or minus the 25,025
difference between line 21a minus line 21c
b. Mother: Line 18b plus or minus the 1,115
difference between line 21b minus line 21d
23. ACTUAL ANNUAL OBLIGATION WHEN HEALTH INSURANCE IS PROVIDED:
a. Line 22 for the obligor parent 25,025 0
b. Any non-means-tested benefits, including
Social Security and Veterans' benefits,
paid to and received by a child or a
person on behalf of the child due to death,
disability, or retirement of the parent 0 0
c. Actual annual obligation (subtract line 23b 25,025 0
from 23a)
24. ADJUSTMENTS TO CHILD SUPPORT WHEN HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT PROVIDED:
Father (Only ifbbligor or shared parenting)
a. Additions: Line 16a times the sum of 5,636
amounts shown on line 19c, Col. II and
line 20b, Col. TIb
c. Subtractions: Line 16b times sum of 504
amounts shown on line 19c, CoL I and
line 20b, Col. I
Mother(Only if obligor or shared parenting)
b. Additions: Line 16b times the sum of amounts 504
shown on line 19c, Col. I and line 20b, Col. I)
d. Subtractions:tine 16a times sum of 5,636
amounts shown on line 19c, Col. II and
line 2Db, Col. II
25. OBLIGATION AFTER ADJUSTMENTS TO CHILD SUPPORT WHEN INSURANCE
IS NOT PROVIDED:
a. Father: Line 18a plus or minus the 24,525
difference between line 24a minus line 24c
b. Mother: Line 18b plus or minus the
difference between line 24b minus line 24d
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Worksheet: Sole/Shared
COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN III
Date: Jan 03, 2011
FATHER MOTHER COMBINED
Case No.:
26. ACTUAL ANNUAL OBLIGATION WHEN INSURANCE IS NOT PROVIDED:
a. Line 25 for the obligor parent $24,525 $0
b. Any non-means-testedbenefits, including
Social Security and Veterans' benefits,
paid to and received by a child or a
person on behalf of the child due to death,
disability, or retirement of the parent $0 $0
c. Actual annual obligation (subtract line 26b $24,525 $0
from 26a)
27a. Deviation from sole residential parent support amount shown on
line 23c or 26c if amount would be unjust or inappropriate: (See section
3119.23 of the Revised Code.) (Specific facts and monetary values
must be stated.) 0
0
Reason:
27b. Deviation amount - shared parenting u
(health ins. provided)
27c. Deviation amount - shared parenting 0
(health ins. not provided)
(See sections 3119.23 and 3119.24 of the Revised Code.) (Specific facts
including amount of time children spend with each parent, ability of
each parent to maintain adequate housing for children, and each
parent's expenses for children must be stated to justify deviation.)
Reason:
JFS 07768 ( Rev. 8/2008)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. Page 5 of 6
WHEN HEALTH WHEN HEALTH
INSURANCE INSURANCEIS
IS PROVIDED NOT PROVIDED
25,025 24,525
28.FINAL CHILD SUPPORT FIGURE:
(This amount reflects final annual child support
obligation; in Col. I, enter line 23c plus or minus any
amounts indicated in line 27a or 27b;
Father is Obligor
in Col. II; enter line 26c plus or minus any amounts
indicated in line 27a or 27b)
29. FOR DECREE: Child support per month
(divide obligor's annual share, line 28, by 12) plus
any processing charge.
Including 2% processing charge
2,085.42 2,043.75
2,127.13 2,084.62
30. FINAL CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT FIGURE:
(this amount reflects the final, annual cash
medical support to be paid by the obligor when
neither parent provides health insurance coverage for the child; enter obligor's cash medical
support amount from line 20b)
1,954
31. FOR DECREE:
162.83
Cash medical support per month
(divide line 30 by 12)
166.09
Including 2% processing charge
Comments:
PREPARED BY:
COUNSEL: PRO SE:
Representing
CSEA:
OTHER:
WORKSHEET HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AGREED TO:
MOTHER
DATE
FATHER
DATE
JFS 07768(Rev. 8l2008) © 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Page 6 of 6
MEDINA COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT
STANDARD PARENTING TIME SCHEDULE
[LOCAL RULE VI, FORM 6.04A]
Effective 03/01/2002
Parties are encouraged to create their own parentingtime plans. For parties who cannot
agree, however, the Court has designed this plan to ensure that minor children have frequent and
consistent contact with both parents.
If you are unable to agree to a different plan, but have objections to this plan because of
special circumstances (e.g., travel time, work schedules) or problems (e.g., substance abuse,
mental illness, viotence)be prepared to present specific facts in a scheduled hearing to show why
this parenting time schedule is not in the best interests of your children:
Parents shall share responsibility for parenting time transportation. Unless otherwise
agreed;the parent receiving possession of the children shall providetranspottation for weekend
and holidayvisits. The nonresidentialparent shallprovide allbther transportation: Unless
otherwise agreed or provided by Court order, all pick-up atid return shall be at the parental
residence.
WEEKEND AND MIDWEEK PAREN'I'ING'TIME.
A. For children from birth to twelve (12) months, three (3) times per week for two
(2) to four (4) hours on the following days and times as agreed by the parties:
Every from _ until , every
from until and every from
until (If the parties are unable to agree, then the
-------- ---- ---- days shall be evety Saturday froni 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and every Tuesday and
Thursday from 5:30 p.m. until 8:00p.m.unless otherwise ordered by the Coru-t.)
Parents shall adjust the parenting time schedule for ehildrenagesbirthto twelve
(12) months to provide for alternate holiday time consistent with the holiday
parenting time schedulehereinafter set forth.
B. For a child twelve (12) tponths to two (2) years, two (2) times per week and one
(1) overnight on alternating weeketlds on the following days and times as agreed
by the parties: Every from until , and
every _ from until _ _ and an overnight on alternating
weekends from __ ___ day at o'clock _.m. until day at
o'clock _m. (If the parties are unable to agree, thenthe days shall be every
Tuesday and Thursday from 5:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., and the overnight shall be
03/02
PAGE
I
OF
9
FORM
6.04A
on alternating weekends on Friday from 6:00 p.m. until Saturday at 6:00p.m:
unless otherwise ordered by the Court.) Parents shall adjust the parenting time
schedule for children age twelve (12) months and older to provide foralternate
holiday parenting time consistent with the holiday parenting time schedule
hereinafter set forth.
C. For children age two (2) and older, alternate weekends from 6:00 p.m. Friday to
6:00 p.m. Sunday plus one (1) evening per week. (If the pai-ties cannot agrce, then
the midweek parenting time shall be on Wednesday fi-om 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
The alternating weekend schedule shallnot change, even if interrupted by holiday,
birthday, summer vacation or other parenting time.
II. HOLIDAY PARENTING 'FIME.This schedule applies to children age two (2) or older.
See Section I for holiday parentingtime with younger children.
H o lida
Even Year
Odd Year
Days& Times
Martin Luther King Day
Father
M o th er
9:00 a . m . - 6:00 p . m . '
President's Day
Mother
Father
9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. I
Easter Sunday
Father
Mother
6:00 p.m.Easter Saturday
to 6:00 p.m. Easter Sunday
H o lida
Even Year
Odd Year
Days &Times
Spring Break:
Option 1:
Option 2:
Shared eqitally by parties
Alternate from year to year
6:00 p.m. day school ends to
6:00 p.m. day before school
Reconveiies
Spring Break Parenting Time does not apply for children not in school.
Memorial Day Mother Father Friday preceeding Memorial
Day at 6:00 p.m. to
Memoi'ialDay Monday at
6:00 p.m.
I Provided this is adayofPfrom school.
4thof July Father
Mother Juiy 4 at 9:00 a.m. to
July 5 at 9:00a.in.
Labor Day Mother
Father Friday preceeding Labor Day
At 6:00 p.m. to Monday
at 6:00 p.m.
Halloween'^ Father
Mother 4 hours in the day/night designated for trick-or-treating
Thanksgiving
Option 1: Father
[Share time equally]
Mother Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. to
Friday at 6:00 p.m. and
Father Friday at 6:00 p.m. to
Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
Thanksgiving
Option 2: Father
[Alternate annually]
Mother Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. to
Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
Christmas Eve Father
Mother 12/23 at 9:00 p.m. to
12/24 at 9:00 p.m.
Christmas Day Mother
Father 12/24 at 9:00 p.m. to
12/25 at 9:00 p.m.
New Year's Day Mother
(Determined by year of January lst)
Father
12/31 at 6:00 p.m: to
1/1 at 6:00 p.m.
Winter break [does not alter holiday parenting time) 6:00 p.m. day school ends
to 6:00 p.m. day before
schoolreconvenes
Option 1: Shared equally by parties with the mother taking the first half in even years
and the father taking the first half in odd years.
Option 2: Alternate from year to year
Winter break parenting time does not apply to children not yet inscliool. The parties must
selectholiday options in the judgment entry and in the event an option is not specified and the
parties do not agree, then Option 1 shall be in effect. Holiday parenting time preempts regular
weekend/midweek parenting time. Spring and Winter breaks are defined by the school calendar
in the district where the residential parent resides and preempts regular weekend/midweek
03/02
PAGE
3
OF
9
FORM
6.04A
visitation. Spring and Winter breaks begin at 6:00 p.m. the day school ends and terminate at 6:00
p.m. the day before school reconvenes.
III. DAYS OF SPECIAL MEANING.
A. Religious or ethnic holidays shall alternate between the parties yearly. Visits shall
be from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., or as otherwise agreed, consistant with the
children's school schedule.
Mother's Day and Mother's birthday shall be spent with Mother, consistent with
the children's school schedule. Father's day and Father's birthday shall be spent
with Father, consistent with the children's school schedule. Visits shall be from
9:00 a:m. until 6:00 p.m. consistent with the children's school sehedule.
Children's birthdays shall alten2ate from year to year between Mother and Father,
Mother haviiigeven-nuinbered years and Fatherhaving odd-numbered years. If
the birthday occurs on a non-parenting time weekday or weekend, it shall be an
additional day of parenting tinie. The parenting time must take into consideration
school and work hours, if applicable. All children of the partiesshall be included
in birthday parenting time. Other siblings, who are not children of both parties,
may be included as the parties may agree. The parties should take into
consideration whether suchsiblings are familiar with and/or have a relationship
with the parenting time parent.In absence of agreement, the birthday visitation
shall be from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m: on a weekday or 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on a
weekend.
D. If a parent is available to spend time with thechildren on other scheduled school
closings, parenting time shall occur, taking into consideration the work schedule
of the other parent as well as the usual child care arrangements. If both parents
are available, stich days shall alternate between the parties. The hours shall be
from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
IV. SUMMER VACATION.
A. For children age five (5) and over, one-half the school summer recess. School
summer recess is defined as beginning the Friday after the last day the children
attend school at 6:00 p.m.; through the Friday one hdl week before school
reconvenes. If the children arenot yet of schoolage, summer recess will be based
upon the public school calendar of the district in whicli the residential parent
resides. The residential parent shall inform the non-residential parent by March
03/02
PAGF.4
OF
9
FORM
6.04A
15th of each year of the specific dates summer vacation begins and ends. The
non-residential parent shall give written notice of summer parenting time dates at
least forty-five (45) days in advance and summer parenting time shall not be
exercised during the last week before school reconvenes unless agreed by the
parties in writing or ordered by the Court. The pai-ties should discuss any special
plans or activities the children may have during the summer, such as sports, camp,
overnight camps, lessons, etc. Parents should make all reasonable efforts to
accommodate the children's activities in scheduling the summer parenting time.
In the event the parties cannot agree on dates the mother shall have the first half of
the summer in odd mnnberedyears and the father shall have the first half in even
ntimbered years.Each parent shall be entitled to takethe children on vacation
away from his or her residence for a period of up to fourteen (14) days upon
fourteen (14) days advance written notice to the other parent, accompanied by a
written agenda indicating the vacation destination, phone numbers where he or
she can be reached, times of arrival and departure and method of traveL
For children age 2 or 3 or 4 (under age 5): Four (4) weeks during the summer
recess period to be taken in installments of two (2) weeks at a time, and separated
by at least two (2) weeks at home with the residential parent. If a child in this age
group has older siblings, the parenting time shall be scheduled to coincide with
the older siblings' parentingtime as much as possible.
Each parent shall be entitled to take the children on vacation away from his or her
residence for a period of up to fourteen (14) days upon fourteen (14) days advance
written notice to the other parent, accompanied by a written agenda indicating the
vacation destination, phone numbers where he or she can be reached, times of
arrival and departure and method of travel.
For children under age two (2), extended summer parenting time shall be only by
written agreemeiitof the parties or special order of Court. Inconsidering
parenting time forchildxen in this age group, parents should consider the child's
maturity, emotional attachment to each parent and attachment to any older siblings
who will have extended parenting time.
During all summer parenting time (except the foin-teen(14) day away-from-home
vacations for children two (2) and over), children should continue to spend
alternate weekends with each parent on the same schedule as the rest of the year.
Also, the residential parent is entitled to the same midweek parenting time granted
to the nonresidential parent.
03/02 ^ .. ^ . ^ ^ PAGE 5 OF 9 FORM 6 .04A
V. TELEPIIONE CALLS.
Each parent has the right to talk over the telephone with the children as often as the
parents agree.If the parents do not agree, then the nonresidential parent should normally have
telephone privileges at least twice per week. In addition, a parent may call a child once during a
scheduled or agreed parenting time period that is rr issed. Also, the residential parent has the
right to call achild when on vacation with the other parent as the parties can agree; if no
agreementi,then the residential parent has telephone privileges up to twice per week. Phone calls
should be made duringthe normalhours a child is awake, and if the child is unavailable for
conveisation, each parent shall take the responsibility of seeing that the child timely returns the
ca1l. Also, any time a child is with one parent, he or she shall be permitted to call the other
parent. Any long distance calls made by a child to a parent shall be collect unless the other parent
agrees otherwise.
VI. PROMP"TNESS.
Each parent shall be prompt for the pick up and return of the children at parenting time.
The residential parent shall prepare the children both emotionally and physically for the parenting
time. The residential parent has no duty to wait for the nonresidential parent to pick up the
children longer than thirty (30) minutes, unless the nonresidential parentnotifiesthe residential
parentthat she/he will be late, and the residential parent agrees to remain available after the thirty
(30) minute waiting period. A parent who is niorethan thirty (30) minutes late loses the
parentingtiine period. The nonresidential parent will not return the children befoi-e the end of the
stated parenting time period, unless the parties agree in advance. The residential parent or a
responsible adult well known to the children shall be present when the children are returned.
VII. CANCELLA'TION.
The nonresidential parent must give notice of intent NOT to have parenting time at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance, unless a last minute emergency occurs. A parent who does
not exercise parenting time forfeits the time. A parent who repeatedly fails to keep his or her
commitment to parenting time or repeatedly violates the court's schedule, may have rights of
parenting time modified, and may be subject to other legal remedies as well, upon motion by the
residential parent.
VIII.ILLNESS.
If a child is too ill forparenting time, the residential parent should notify the visiting
parent at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance, if possible. A child who is confned to bed rest
03/02
PAGE
6
OF
9
FORM
6.O4A
pursuant to a doctor's instructions, or who has a fever of 100 degrees Fahreiiheit or greater and
other signs of illness is presumed too ill for parenting time. If a child has a less severe illnessor
medical condition, the parents shall consider the nature of the illness (whether it may be
contagious, or the child is physically uncomfortable, etc.), the care necessary, the ability to
provide the care; exposure of the illness to others, parenting time plans, and any other important
matters. If the parents agree that the child should go for the parenting time period, then the
residential parent shall provide the parenting time parent with all appropriate medications and/or
medical instructions, which shall be administered or followed by the parentingtime parent. The
pareriting time parent must care for the child as directed, and notifythe other parent if the child's
condition worsens, or does not improve as might reasonably be expected.
IX. SUPPORT OF PARENTING TIME.
If a child indicatesstrong opposition to being with the other parent, it is the responsibility
of each parent to appropriately deal with the situation, by calmly talking to the child as to the
child's reasons, and to work with the other parent to do what is in the child's best interests, and
particularly, to avoid confrontation or unpleasant scenes' If the matter is not settled; either parent
mayseekthe immediate assistanee of a mental health professional or file a motioii_ As
uncomfortable as this issue may be for a parent, this issue should not go unresolved. It is the
absolute affirmative duty of the residential parent to make certain that his or her child goes for
the parenting time period.
CLO'TIIING.
The residential parent is responsible for providing sufficient appropriate cleanclothing
for every parenting time period with the nonresidential parent; based on the lifestyle of the
residential parent and child. If the planned parenting time activities require special or unusual
clothingneeds;the non-residential parentmust notify the residential parent at least two (2) days
in advance of the parenting time period: If the child does not have the type of clothing requested;
the residential parent is under no obligation to comply with the request and shall promptly notify
the non-residential parent. All clothing sent by the residential parent must be returned
immediately after the visitation period. Clothing provided by the nonresidential parent and worn
home by a child shall be cleaned and returned at the next visit.
The cliildrenshall be entitled to take clothing and items of personal property to each
parent's household. Gifts given to a child shall not be restricted to one househoidunless special
cira.imstances make it unreasonable toiriove the item between liouseholds. Normally, special
circumstances would be deemed to apply to computer hardware (but not software), video game
03/02 ^. ^ PAGE 7 OF 9 FORM 6.04A
systems (but iiot individual game software) and large items that cannot be easily transported.
Each parent shall use due diligence to ensure that items brought from the other household are
returned with the children in good condition.
XII. SCHOOLWORK.
A parent must provide time for the children to study and complete homework
assignments, papers or other school assigned projects, even if the completion of this work
interferes with the parent's plans with the children. If schoot work is assigned by the school prior
to the parenting time, the residentialparent must inform the other parent oftlie work to be done,
and it must be completed during the parenting time period.
XIII. ADDRESS AND TELEPIIONE NUMBERS.
Each parent must, unless the Court orders otherwise, keep the other informed of lus or her
current address and telephone number, and an alternate telephone number in the event of an
emergency. Apost office box address or otlier address that is used for mail, but is not the actual
residence, does not satisfy this requirement. If mail is only received at a post office box address;
that address must also be provided.
XIV. CHII.DREN'S AC'I'IVITIES.
Scheduled periods of parenting time shall not be delayed or denied because a child has
other scheduled activities (with friends, work, lessons, sports, etc.). It is the responsibility of the
parents to discuss activities important to the children in advance, including time, dates, and
transportation needs, so that the childreti are not deprived of activities and maintaining
friendships. The parent who has the children during the time of scheduled activities is
responsible for transportation, attendance and/or other arrangements. If the activities are
regularlyscheduled, they should be agreed upon in advance and written into the judgment entry
or decree. Both parents are encouraged to attend all their children's activities.
XV. NOTICE OF RELOCATION.
Pursuant to the determination made under O.R.C. §3109.05I (G)(I), the non-residential
parent shall be sent a copy of any notice of relocation filed with the Court.
XVI. ACCESS TO SCIIOOI AND MEDICAL RECORDS, DAY CARE RECORDS,
AND S'I'UDEN"P AC'IIVITIES.
03/02
PAGE
8
OF
9
FORM
6
,04A
Pursuant to O.R.C. §§3109.051(H), (1) AND ( J), the non-residential parent is entitled to
access under the same terms andconditibrts under which access is provided to the residential
parent to any record related to the children, and any student activity related to the children, or any
public school, private school, or day care that is, or in the future may be, attended by the chiidren.
03/02
PAGE
9
OF
9
FORM
6.04A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and accurate copy of the foregoing Answer of Respondent was sent via ordinary
U.S. mail, postage prepaid, thisjjA day of May, 2011 to the following:
John C. Ragner, Esq.
Towne, Hanna, Rasnick, Co., L.P.A.
388 South Main Street, Suite 402
Akron, Ohio 44311
Attomey for Relator
AN M. RICH°fER,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney