Pula v. Pula-Branch

[Cite as Pula v. Pula-Branch, 2011-Ohio-4949.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 93460
RUBY K. PULA, ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
vs.
ADRIENNE HAUNANI PULA-BRANCH
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division
Case No. D-323885
BEFORE: Keough, J., Stewart, P.J., and Cooney, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 29, 2011
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Kestra Smith
Assistant County Prosecutor
C.S.E.A.
P.O. Box 93923
Cleveland, OH 44113
Mark R. Marshall
P.O. Box 451146
Westlake, OH 44145
FOR APPELLEE
Adrienne H. Pula-Branch
3010 West 115th Street
Apt. 1
Cleveland, OH 44111
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant Ruby K. Pula is a resident of Hawaii and the custodian and
maternal grandmother of K.G.P., a minor child born out of wedlock in Hawaii. K.G.P.
resides with Pula; appellee, Adrienne Haunani Pula-Branch, K.G.P.’s birth mother, lives
in Cleveland. On November 18, 2008, appellant Cuyahoga Support Enforcement
Agency (“CSEA”), on Pula’s behalf and pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (“UIFSA”), R.C. Chapter 3115, filed in the domestic relations court a
petition for child support and medical coverage against Pula-Branch.
{¶ 2} After a hearing, the magistrate issued a decision ordering Pula-Branch to
pay $61 per month in child support ($51 current child support plus $10 arrearage
support). The magistrate’s decision found that the birth certificate submitted with the
petition identified Pula-Branch as K.G.P.’s natural mother. The decision further found
that “Gregory Earl Gates, Jr. * * * is identified on the birth certificate as the child’s
father.” Nevertheless, the magistrate found that “there is no evidence verifying the
establishment of paternity” and concluded that it would therefore be inequitable to
include Gates’s income in any child support calculation. Hence, the magistrate calculated
Pula-Branch’s support obligation as if she were K.G.P.’s sole parent, thereby substantially
reducing Pula-Branch’s obligation.
{¶ 3} The trial court subsequently overruled CSEA’s objections to the
magistrate’s decision and adopted the decision in its entirety. On appeal, this court held
that the domestic relations division of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over a UIFSA petition, and therefore reversed and remanded
with instructions to the trial court to vacate its order. Pula v. Pula-Branch, Cuyahoga
App. No. 93460, 2010-Ohio-912. The Ohio Supreme Court subsequently reversed our
decision and remanded for consideration of the merits of CSEA’s appeal. Pula v.
Pula-Branch, 129 Ohio St.3d 196, 2011-Ohio-2896, 951 N.E.2d 72.
{¶ 4} CSEA raises two assignments of error on appeal. In its first assignment of
error, CSEA argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to recognize
that paternity had been legally established. In its second assignment of error, CSEA
argues that the trial court’s conclusion that paternity had not been established was against
the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 5} A trial court’s decision concerning child support issues will not be reversed
absent an abuse of discretion. H.N.H. v. H.M.F., Cuyahoga App. No. 84642,
2005-Ohio-1869, ¶6, citing Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d
1028. The term “abuse of discretion” implies that the court’s attitude was unreasonable,
arbitrary or unconscionable. Booth at 144.
{¶ 6} Under R.C. 3705.09(F)(2), “[i]f the mother was not married at the time of
conception or birth * * *, the child shall be registered by the surname designated by the
mother. The name of the father of such child shall also be inserted on the birth
certificate if both the mother and the father sign an acknowledgment of paternity affidavit
before the birth record has been sent to the local registrar.”
{¶ 7} Under Haw. Rev. Stat. 584-3.5, “to expedite the establishment of paternity,
each public and private birthing hospital or center and the department of health shall
provide unwed parents the opportunity to voluntarily acknowledge the paternity of a child
during the period immediately prior to or following the child’s birth. The voluntary
acknowledgment of paternity shall be in writing and shall consist of a single form signed
under oath by both the natural mother and the natural father and signed by a witness. * * *
Each facility shall send to the department of health the original acknowledgment of
paternity * * * so that the birth certificate issued includes the name of the legal father of
the child * * *.”
{¶ 8} Furthermore, under Haw. Rev. Stat. 584-4(6), “[a] man is presumed to be
the natural father of a child if * * * [a] voluntary, written acknowledgment of paternity of
the child signed by him under oath is filed with the department of health. * * * The
voluntary acknowledgment of paternity by the presumed father * * * shall be the basis for
establishing and enforcing a support obligation through a judicial proceeding.”
{¶ 9} Thus, under both Ohio and Hawaii law, where an unmarried woman gives
birth to a child, the father’s name appears on the birth certificate only when he has
voluntarily acknowledged paternity in writing. Furthermore, in Hawaii, a man’s written
acknowledgment of paternity creates a presumption that the man is the child’s natural
father.
{¶ 10} Here, K.G.P.’s birth certificate was provided to the magistrate. And, as the
magistrate’s decision acknowledged, the birth certificate identified Gregory Earl Gates,
Jr. as K.G.P.’s father. Because Gates’s name would not have appeared on the birth
certificate unless he had voluntarily acknowledged paternity in writing, the birth
certificate is indeed evidence of paternity.
{¶ 11} Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that there was no
evidence verifying the establishment of paternity. Further, in light of the birth certificate,
the magistrate’s conclusion that paternity had not been established was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. The birth certificate listed Gates’s name as K.G.P.’s
father. Further, K.G.P.’s surname, as listed on the birth certificate, is hyphenated and
includes Gates’s name. Accordingly, the manifest weight of the evidence demonstrates
that, as the petition for support stated, paternity had indeed been established.
{¶ 12} We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand with
instructions to the trial court to recognize the paternity established by the birth certificate
and to recalculate Pula-Branch’s support obligation using income figures for both parents.
Reversed and remanded.
It is ordered that appellants recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR