J.Y. v. J.Y. ( 2018 )

[Cite as J.Y. v. J.Y., 2018-Ohio-3522.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
J.Y. C.A. No. 17CA0037-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
J.Y. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 17DV00005
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 4, 2018
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant J.Y. (“Father”) appeals from the judgment of the Medina County Court
of Common Please, Domestic Relations Division. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On January 9, 2017, Father’s former spouse, Appellee J.Y. (“Mother”) filed a
petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against Father on behalf of the parties’ two
children. The allegations in the petition included that the older son had threatened suicide and,
after being hospitalized, revealed that he was very afraid of Father. Additionally, the petition
included allegations that the children had witnessed Father threaten to kill himself with a
handgun. An ex parte civil protection order was issued and the matter proceeded to a full
hearing before a magistrate. The magistrate granted the petition and the trial court adopted the
entry. Father did not file objections, and instead appealed, raising a single assignment of error
for our review.
2
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT [THE] HEARING WAS INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT’S ISSUANCE OF THE
REQUESTED DVCPO AGAINST APPELLANT-FATHER AND, FURTHER,
THE ISSUANCE OF THAT DVCPO WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶3} Father argues in his sole assignment of error that there was insufficient evidence
to support the issuance of the domestic violence civil protection order and that such issuance was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because Father failed to adhere to the procedural
requirements of Civ.R. 65.1, we do not address the merits of his arguments.
{¶4} Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i) provides, in relevant part, that, “[a] party may file written
objections to a court’s adoption, modification, or rejection of a magistrate's denial or granting of
a protection order after a full hearing, or any terms of such an order, within fourteen days of the
court’s filing of the order.” “While former Rule 65.1(G) provided that an order issued after a full
hearing was a final, appealable order with or without the subsequent filing of objections, that
Rule was amended in July 2016.” A.S. v. D.S., 9th Dist. Medina No. 16CA0080-M, 2017-Ohio-
7782, ¶ 5. Civ.R. 65.1(G) now states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule, an order entered by the court
under division (F)(3)(c) or division (F)(3)(e) of this rule is a final, appealable
order. However, a party must timely file objections to such an order under
division (F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal, and the timely filing of
such objections shall stay the running of the time for appeal until the filing of the
court’s ruling on the objections.
{¶5} Unfortunately, Father did not file objections prior to filing an appeal as required
by Civ.R. 65.1(G). Moreover, the fact that the domestic violence civil protection order indicated
that it was a final appealable order did not excuse Father from complying with the procedural
3
requirements of Civ.R. 65.1. A.S. v. D.S. at ¶ 6. Because Father failed to file objections, we
decline to address the merits of his assignment of error. See id.
{¶6} Father’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶7} Father’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
4
SCHAFER, P. J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DAVID V. GEDROCK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
GERALD D. PISZCZEK, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.