Mumford v. Shackleton , 2011 Ohio 5583 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Mumford v. Shackleton, 
    2011-Ohio-5583
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    STARK COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STEPHEN M. MUMFORD,                                :      JUDGES:
    :
    :     Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
    Plaintiff-Appellant,         :     Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
    :     Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
    v.                                                 :
    :      Case No. 2011-CA-00107
    DANA SHACKLETON,                                   :
    :
    :
    Defendant-Appellee.          :      OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                               Appeal from the Stark County Court of
    Common Pleas, Family Division, Case No.
    2011DR00302
    JUDGMENT:                                              AFFIRMED
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                                October 24, 2011
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellant:                                 For Defendant-Appellee:
    ROSEMARY G. RUBIN                                        MATTHEW W. OBERHOLTZER
    The Victorian Professional Building                      116 Cleveland Avenue NW
    1435 Market Ave. North                                   Courtyard Centre/Suite 650
    Canton, Ohio 44714                                       Canton, Ohio 44702
    [Cite as Mumford v. Shackleton, 
    2011-Ohio-5583
    .]
    Delaney, J.
    {¶ 1} Appellant Stephen M. Mumford, a resident of Stark County, appeals the
    May 9, 2011 judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division,
    which denied temporary emergency jurisdiction over Appellant’s minor child A.Y., a
    resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    {¶ 2} Appellant and Appellee Dana Shackleton married on June 13, 2002, in
    North Carolina and A.Y. was born issue of the marriage on December 23, 2003. The
    couple has lived separate and apart since March, 2008. At that time, Appellee and A.Y.
    moved to Philadelphia.
    {¶ 3} On March 11, 2011, Appellant filed for divorce in Stark County and sought
    temporary allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for A.Y.       The same day,
    Appellant filed a motion for ex parte order requiring that A.Y. remain in the jurisdiction
    of Stark County pursuant to R.C. 3127.18(A)(2) and R.C. 3127.15. Appellant alleged he
    was contacted by relatives of Appellee to retrieve A.Y. when Appellee was about to be
    incarcerated in Philadelphia.          Appellant further alleged that Appellee had lost her
    apartment and there was no satisfactory place for A.Y. to live. Lastly, Appellant alleged
    A.Y. had missed a considerable amount of school due to Appellee’s excessive drinking.
    {¶ 4} A magistrate issued an ex parte order placing A.Y. in Appellant’s
    temporary custody, allowing Appellant to enroll A.Y. in school and preventing either
    parent from removing A.Y. from Stark County until further order of the court.          The
    magistrate also appointed a guardian ad litem.
    {¶ 5} The matter was set for hearing on March 23, 2011.            The same day,
    Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the divorce complaint and ex parte order on the
    Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00107                                                    3
    grounds the Stark County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction over the minor
    child and sought immediate return of A.Y. to Pennsylvania.
    {¶ 6} At hearing, the trial court heard the arguments of counsel regarding
    jurisdiction and took the matter under advisement. The trial court also referred the
    matter to the Stark County Department of Job and Family Services due to the
    allegations of neglect, dependency and abuse of A.Y.
    {¶ 7} On April 21, 2011, Appellee filed a motion for return of A.Y., which was
    originally set for hearing on May 16, 2011, however, it was continued until June 27,
    2011.
    {¶ 8} On May 9, 2011, the trial court issued the following order:
    {¶ 9} “The Court finds that Pennsylvania is the home state of the parties’ child,
    pursuant to ORC 3127.15. No action has been filed in Pennsylvania. ORC 3127.18
    does not confer authority for this court to issue emergency custody orders as there is
    insufficient evidence to convince this court that the child is abandoned, mistreated or
    abused. The allegations of potential neglect are insufficient to warrant this court to
    confer emergency jurisdiction. All orders with regard to [A.Y.] DOB 12/23/2003 are
    vacated.    The child is to be returned to the legal custody of his mother, Dana
    Shackelton [sic]. The Stark County Sheriff and/or any police agency having jurisdiction
    are directed to facilitate the return of the child to his mother forthwith.”
    {¶ 10} Subsequently, both the trial court and this Court denied Appellant’s motion
    to stay the May 9th order.
    {¶ 11} Appellant filed a timely appeal.
    {¶ 12} Assignments of Error are as follows:
    Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00107                                                                4
    {¶ 13} “I.    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ISSUE OF
    CUSTODY AND FINDING THAT OHIO REVISED CODE §3127.18 DID NOT CONFER
    AUTHORITY ON THE COURT TO ISSUE EMERGENCY CUSTODY ORDERS.
    {¶ 14} “II.    THE      TRIAL       COURT             ERRED        IN   NOT      GRANTING
    PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT ADDITIONAL TIME TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE
    ABUSE AND MISTREATMENT OF [A.Y.] BY THE DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.
    {¶ 15} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING LEGAL CUSTODY TO
    THE DEFENDANT/APPELLEE WHEN NO CUSTODY DETERMINATION HAD BEEN
    RENDERED UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE §3109.03.”
    I.
    {¶ 16} In the first Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
    concluding it lack jurisdiction to issue emergency custody orders pursuant to R.C.
    3127.18(A)(2) under the facts of this case. We disagree.
    {¶ 17} The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”),
    as codified in Ohio R.C. Chapter 3127, is designed to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and to
    promote cooperation between state courts in custody matters so that a decree is
    rendered in the state that can best decide the best interest of the child. State ex rel.
    Aycock v. Mowrey (1989), 
    45 Ohio St.3d 347
    , 349-350, 
    554 N.E.2d 657
     (citations
    omitted). A trial court’s decision as to whether to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the
    UCCJEA should only be reversed upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. In The
    Matter of Collins, 5th Dist. No. 06CA000028, 
    2007-Ohio-4582
    , at ¶ 15.                     The Ohio
    Supreme Court has stated abuse of discretion “connotes more than an error of law or
    judgment;    it   implies   that   the   court’s        attitude   is   unreasonable,   arbitrary   or
    Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00107                                                    5
    unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 
    5 Ohio St.3d 217
    , 219, 
    450 N.E.2d 1140
    .
    {¶ 18} R.C. 3127.18(A)(2) authorizes Ohio courts to exercise temporary
    emergency jurisdiction over children when “ * * * [i]t is necessary in an emergency to
    protect the child because the child * * * is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment
    or abuse.”
    {¶ 19} In this case, the trial court heard arguments of counsel and subsequently
    determined there was “insufficient evidence to convince the court that the child is
    abandoned, mistreated or abused.” Judgment Entry, May 9, 2011.
    {¶ 20} On appeal, Appellant contends he traveled to Philadelphia to pick up his
    son because Appellee’s family notified him that Appellee had been arrested and was
    about to be evicted. Furthermore, Appellant was told that if he did not come and get
    A.Y., the child would be sent to foster services. Lastly, once A.Y. was enrolled in a Ohio
    school, it was discovered that he had not attended school regularly in Philadelphia.
    {¶ 21} Although the UCCJEA does not specifically define “mistreatment” or
    “abuse”, it does not appear from the record that A.Y. was subject to or threatened with
    physical or mental injury. See, R.C. 2151.03.1. Moreover any failure to provide a
    proper education to A.Y. appears to be more in the realm of neglect, as noted by the
    trial court. See, R.C. 2151.03(A)(3).
    {¶ 22} The circumstances of this case, while calling into question the capacity of
    Appellee to provide adequate care to this 7 year-old child, does not support a finding by
    this Court that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable in
    concluding that emergency jurisdiction was not warranted.
    Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00107                                                      6
    {¶ 23} Although not separately stated as an assignment of error, Appellant also
    argues in his brief that the trial court had jurisdiction over A.Y. custody’s pursuant to
    R.C. 3127.15, because A.Y. resided with Appellant when the divorce petition was filed
    and A.Y. had lived in Ohio prior to relocation with Appellee to Philadelphia in 2008.
    {¶ 24} R.C. 3127.15 provides, as follows:
    {¶ 25} “(A) Except as otherwise provided in section 3127.18 of the Revised
    Code, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination in a child
    custody proceeding only if one of the following applies:
    {¶ 26} “(1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the
    commencement of the proceedings, or was the home state of               the child within six
    months before the commencement of the proceedings and the child is absent from this
    state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.
    {¶ 27} “(2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under division
    (A)(1) of this section or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise
    jurisdiction on the basis that this state is the more appropriate forum under section
    3127.21 or 3127.22 of the Revised Code, or a similar statute of the other state, and both
    of the following are the case:
    {¶ 28} “(a) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent
    or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than
    mere physical presence.
    {¶ 29} “(b) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s
    care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
    {¶ 30} “ * * *.”
    Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00107                                                      7
    {¶ 31} “ ‘Home state’ means the state in which the child lived with a parent or
    person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the
    commencement of a child custody proceeding * * *.” R.C. 3127.01(B)(7)
    {¶ 32} Appellant agrees the trial court’s determination that Pennsylvania is the
    home state of A.Y. is factually correct, but contends that subsection (2), above, applies
    because most of A.Y.’s life was spent in Ohio and Appellant has equal parental rights.
    However, this no indication in the record that A.Y. had spent any time in Ohio for 3
    years preceding the divorcing filing (apparently Appellant only had telephone
    communication with A.Y.), nor is there “substantial evidence” available in Ohio
    concerning his care and personal relationships.
    {¶ 33} Accordingly, we find Appellant’s contention that jurisdiction was warranted
    under R.C. 3127.15 to be without merit.
    {¶ 34} The first Assignment of Error is overruled.
    II.
    {¶ 35}    In the second Assignment of Error, Appellant contends the trial court
    should have conducted an evidentiary hearing and taken additional evidence as to
    whether A.Y. was subject to mistreatment or abuse. Appellant claims records from the
    Stark County Department of Jobs and Family Services (DJFS) were subsequently
    obtained by the trial court after the March 23rd hearing and May 9th order, which would
    establish that Appellee failed to properly provide for A.Y. while they lived in Ohio.
    {¶ 36} However, the record fails to indicate that the trial court in fact received or
    reviewed any records from DJFS during the underlying proceedings. The trial court also
    did not indicate in its May 9th order that it had obtained, reviewed or relied upon such
    Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00107                                                     8
    records. Appellant apparently seeks to have the trial court reopen the matter and take
    additional evidence after the May 9th dismissal order. This issue was not raised before
    the trial court, and therefore, is not properly before this Court.
    {¶ 37} Accordingly, the second Assignment of Error is overruled.
    III.
    {¶ 38} In the third Assignment of Error, Appellant challenges the trial court’s
    granting of legal custody of A.Y. to Appellee when no previous custody matter had been
    determined. Appellant relies upon R.C. 3109.03 for his position.
    {¶ 39} R.C. 3109.03 states:
    {¶ 40} “When husband and wife are living separate and apart from each other, or
    are divorced, and the question as to the parental rights and responsibilities for the care
    of their children and the place of residence and legal custodian of their children is
    brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, they shall stand upon an equality as to
    the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of their children and the place of
    residence and legal custodian of their children, so far as parenthood is involved.”
    (Emphasis added).
    {¶ 41} Appellant insists this matter must be remanded to the trial court for further
    testimony to allow the trial court to make a full determination as to both jurisdiction and
    the best interest of A.Y.
    {¶ 42} In this case, we find Appellant’s reliance upon R.C. 3109.03 to be
    misplaced. The trial court determined it did not have emergency jurisdiction to make an
    initial child-custody determination pursuant to R.C. 3127.18, and thus would not be a
    “court of competent jurisdiction” under R.C. 3109.03.
    Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00107                                                  9
    {¶ 43} Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court has noted that the UCCJEA gives
    jurisdictional priority to the child’s home state and eliminates a determination of best
    interest of the child from the original jurisdictional inquiry. Rosen v. Celebrezze, 
    117 Ohio St.3d 241
    , 
    2008-Ohio-853
    , ¶ 21, 
    883 N.E.2d 420
    .
    {¶ 44} The third Assignment of Error is overruled.
    {¶ 45} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family
    Division, is hereby affirmed.
    By: Delaney, J.
    Gwin, P.J. and Hoffman, J. concur.
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    [Cite as Mumford v. Shackleton, 
    2011-Ohio-5583
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STEPHEN M. MUMFORD,                                :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellant,         :
    :
    :
    v.                                                 :    JUDGMENT ENTRY
    :
    DANA SHACKLETON,                                   :
    :
    Defendant-Appellee.          :    Case No. 2011-CA-00107
    :
    For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
    judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, is affirmed.
    Costs assessed to Appellant.
    _________________________________
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    _________________________________
    HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
    _________________________________
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-CA-00107

Citation Numbers: 2011 Ohio 5583

Judges: Delaney

Filed Date: 10/24/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021