In re G.C.B. , 2024 Ohio 74 ( 2024 )

[Cite as In re G.C.B., 2024-Ohio-74.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE G.C.B. :
: No. 112941
A Minor Child :
:
[Appeal by M.D.B., Father] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 11, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Juvenile Division
Case No. FA-22-205737
Appearances:
M.D.B., pro se.
MARY J. BOYLE, J.:
In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant, M.D.B. (“Father”), pro se, appeals
the juvenile trial court’s June 26, 2023 order raising a single assignment of error for
our review:
1. Appellants judgment entry from the trial court was in violation of
appellants due process to a fair trial under law.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
C.T.M. (“Mother”) and M.D.B. are the natural mother and father of
G.C.B. and A.A.B., twin boys, d.o.b. 11/08/2016.
According to Exhibit A attached to the trial court’s June 26, 2023
order, an evidentiary hearing was held on June 13, 2023, regarding:
1. Father’s complaint or Motion to Adopt the Administrative Child
Support Order as a Judicial Order. (Father attached to his motion
or complaint the corrected Administrative Order for Child Support
and Medical Support modified on August 9, 2018, the effective date
was July 1, 2018, the amount was Three hundred Seventy-Seven
Dollars and Eighty-Nine Dollars [377.89] per child.) The
motion/complaint was filed June 6, 2022;
2. Father’s Motion to Terminate Child Support filed on June 6, 2022;
3. Father’s pleading for special appearance;
4. Mother’s Motion to Show Cause (interference with parenting time
or contact); and
5. Mother’s Motion of July 25, 2022, to Modify the Shared Parenting
Plan of June 3, 2022.
The matter was transferred to the visiting/retired judge’s docket on
January 24, 2023.
Father opposed the visiting/retired judge assignment at the March
pretrial and at the June hearing because Father claimed that he had not consented
to a retired judge sitting by assignment to hear these matters and that his right to
due process was being violated.
Father also filed three affidavits for disqualification of this judge with
the Ohio Supreme Court in March, April, and May 2023. Finding no merit, all three
were dismissed by the Ohio Supreme Court. Father also filed a motion for change
of venue, citing a federal statute, that was denied by the trial court on April 28, 2023.
Father appealed this order, which was dismissed by this court as not being a final
appealable order.
The trial court in its March and June pretrial judgment entries
ordered Mother and Father to produce within 14 days of the June hearing certain
financial and insurance documents, including tax returns, W-2’s, proof of income,
and proof of insurance, etc.
Father, Mother, and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Paul Carroll from
the Child Support Enforcement Agency appeared at the June hearing wherein
Mother testified in support of her motions as well as in opposition to Father’s
motions. The trial court also found that Mother complied with its pretrial orders
and produced documents wherein Father did not. Father produced no documents.
According to the trial court, Father was offered the opportunity to:
a. Make an opening statement
b. Cross-examine witnesses
c. Call witnesses
d. Object to exhibits
e. Present his case
f. Make a closing argument
g. Answer questions from the Court.
However, Father chose not to participate and repeatedly stated that
the court had no jurisdiction, that he had entered a special appearance, that the
judge had no authority to hear the motions, that he did not consent to a
visiting/retired judge, and that he was being denied due process and a fair trial.
Mother’s Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F were admitted into evidence.
Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court on June 26, 2023,
issued a detailed journal entry finding that “Mother has shown a change of
circumstances. Father’s continued non-cooperation, threats, and failure to respond
makes such modification necessary and in the best interests of G.C.B and A.A.B.” As
a result, the court denied Father’s motions for failure to prosecute and adopted the
Mediation Agreement (“Parenting Plan”) dated June 3, 2022, as modified; kept the
Administrative Order for Child Support and Medical Support of August 9, 2018, in
full force and effect; and found Father guilty of contempt for interfering with
Mother’s parenting time, ordering a separate hearing be scheduled for sanctions.
Father timely appeals.
In his sole assignment of error, Father alleges that the trial court
entered the June 2023 order in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, by failing to grant Father the right to have his matters heard in the
proper venue. In support of his assigned error, Father next states, “Evidence: United
States Constitution, Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal
government that no one shall be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law.’” Father then asks this court to reverse the judgment entry because
of the “willful violations of the United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment
because the trial court was in receipt of his timely filed objections and facts of law
applied.” It appears that Father is arguing that his objections to earlier proceedings
and rulings made by the court were not heard, that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to hear matters pending before it at the June hearing, that the trial court
prevented him from speaking, and that the trial court “showed bias and unlawful
behavior toward him” in its determinations. For these reasons, Father asks this
court “to reverse the trial court’s decision and remand the matter for a new trial.”
No appellee brief was filed. No transcripts were filed.
Father is proceeding pro se, and under Ohio Law, all litigants,
including those who are pro se, are held to the same standard and must be held
accountable for the rules of civil procedure and for their own mistakes. Bikkani v.
Lee, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89312, 2008-Ohio-3130, ¶ 29, citing Kilroy v. B.H.
Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 363, 676 N.E. 2d 171 (8th Dist.1996).
Within this assignment of error, appellant argues, without any cogent
argument or sufficient explanation, that he was denied due process and a fair trial
and that he was not heard by the trial court. He continues to maintain, without any
legal authority, that the trial court was not qualified to hear these matters, even
though the Ohio Supreme Court has denied his requests three times, issuing three
separate opinions explaining its rulings.
App.R. 16(A)(7) states that the appellant’s brief shall include “[a]n
argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each
assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the
contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on
which appellant relies.” This rule is designed “to aid the reviewing court in
determining whether any reversible error occurred in the lower court by having the
complaining party specify the exact location(s) where such a determination can be
made.” Hildreth Mfg. v. Semco, Inc., 151 Ohio App.3d 693, 2003-Ohio-741, 785
N.E.2d 774, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). We are not obliged to scour the record in search of
evidence to support an appellant’s assignment of error. Nob Hill E. Condo. Assn. v.
Grundstein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95919, 2011-Ohio-2552, ¶ 11. Nor is it our duty
to search for law in support of an appellant’s argument on appeal. Strauss v.
Strauss, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95377, 2011-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72. The appellant’s brief
does not comport with the requirements set forth in App.R. 16(A)(7). Appellant’s
arguments are bare allegations unsupported by references to the record, and his
reference to a United States constitutional violation is mostly unconnected to the
record especially since he requests a change of venue to the federal court without
any legal support and then concludes his brief with a request that the matter be
returned to the same juvenile court for a new trial. Again, without providing any
legal support for Father’s request.
He further believes that he entered only a “special appearance” for the
sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court yet complains that his
motions, objections, and matters before the court have not been heard. Moreover,
appellant has failed to prepare and file any transcript of any proceedings at which
he now complains of not being heard. It is the appellant’s duty to file the transcript
or any parts of the transcript that are necessary for evaluating the trial court’s
decision. App.R. 9; Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400
N.E.2d 384 (1980). “This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of
showing error by reference to matters in the record.” Id., citing State v. Skaggs, 53
Ohio St.2d 162, 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). Appellant’s failure to comply with App.R.
9 and his failure to fulfill his duty to file the parts of the transcript that are necessary
to enable this court to evaluate the trial court’s judgment cannot be excused on the
basis that he is acting pro se. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 107951, 2019-Ohio-4059, ¶ 31. Without the filing of a transcript (or
a statement of the evidence or proceedings under App.R. 9(C) or an agreed
statement under App.R. 9(D)), this court must presume regularity in the trial court’s
proceedings. Knapp at id. (“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution
of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to
pass upon and, thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to
presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”). This means that
we must “presume that the trial court considered all the evidence and arguments
raised” and that sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court’s
decision. Bakhtiar v. Saghafi, 2016-Ohio-8052, 75 N.E.3d 801, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.) (“In
the absence of a complete and adequate record, a reviewing court must presume the
regularity of the trial court proceedings and the presence of sufficient evidence to
support the trial court’s decision.”). Appellant’s failure to (1) provide any cogent
argument in support of his assignment of error, (2) cite to the record, (3) provide
relevant legal authority, and (4) make the transcript part of the record renders his
assignment of error beyond our consideration. We must accept the trial court’s
findings that Father, due to his own conduct, failed to participate in the proceedings,
failed to present any evidence, and, without legal authority, repeatedly argues
constitutional violations and asks for a do over.
Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR