Hageman v. Brown

[Cite as Hageman v. Brown, 2009-Ohio-5432.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
KATHLEEN ANN HAGEMAN, CASE NO. 5-09-20
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FRANK C. BROWN, JR., OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
TINA BOONE (NKA JOHNSON) ET AL., CASE NO. 5-09-21
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FRANK C. BROWN, JR., OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Juvenile Division
Trial Court Nos. 97400132 and 890451
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 13, 2009
Case No. 5-09-20, 21
APPEARANCES:
Frank C. Brown, Jr. Appellant
Mary L. Hool for Appellees
ROGERS, J.
{¶1} Although originally placed on our accelerated calendar, we have
elected, pursuant to Local Rule 12(5), to issue a full opinion in lieu of a judgment
entry.
{¶2} Defendant-Appellant, Frank C. Brown, Jr., appeals the judgments of
the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, Juvenile Division, denying his
motions requesting that the trial court order the Hancock County Child Support
Enforcement Agency (hereinafter “CSEA”) to produce, release, and provide
complete, unredacted copies of files regarding his child support in cases 5-09-20
and 5-09-21. In this consolidated appeal, Brown contends that the trial court erred
and abused its discretion when it failed to grant his motions based on R.C. 3125.15
and 3125.16, and Ohio Adm. Code §5101:12-1-20.1, and, that it was reversible
error for the trial court to rule on his motion without giving Plaintiff-Appellees,
Kathleen A. Hageman and Tina Boone, nka Johnson, the opportunity to respond.
Based upon the following, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
-2-
Case No. 5-09-20, 21
{¶3} Brown and Kathleen Hageman are the parents of Frank IV (D.O.B.
April 21, 1992), Caleb (D.O.B. July 10, 1993), Garrett (D.O.B. June 22, 1996),
and Alicia (D.O.B. January 28, 2000). Brown and Kathleen never married.
Brown and Tina Boone are the parents of Whitney (D.O.B. May 8, 1988), and also
never married.
{¶4} In 1989, the trial court ordered Brown to pay Tina child support for
Whitney. In 2002, the trial court granted Kathleen custody of the Hageman
children, and, in 2003, the trial court ordered Brown to pay Kathleen $332.07 in
child support per month for the Hageman children. Thereafter, in 2008, Brown
filed motions attempting to decrease his child support payments due to his
incarceration, which the trial court denied and this Court affirmed. See Hageman
v. Brown, 3d Dist. No. 5-07-35, 2008-Ohio-3218. Additionally, in 2009, while
incarcerated, Brown sought certain parental rights with Frank IV, including the
right to the child’s current address pursuant to R.C. 3109.051(H)(1), which the
trial court denied. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on the
basis that Brown did not object to the magistrate’s decision denying him the
requested information, thereby waiving any error. See In re Frank Brown, 3d
Dist. No. 13-08-46, 2009-Ohio-2192.
{¶5} In May 2009, Brown filed pro se motions pursuant to R.C. 3125.15
and 3125.16, and Ohio Adm. Code 5101:12-1-20.1(H), requesting the trial court
order the CSEA to “immediately produce, release and provide complete,
-3-
Case No. 5-09-20, 21
unredacted copies of the entire casefiles [sic] of [cases 5-09-20 and 5-09-21].”
Shortly thereafter, the trial court denied his requests based on the authority of this
Court’s decision in In re Frank Brown, supra.
{¶6} It is from these judgments that Brown appeals, presenting the
following pro se assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND/OR ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION BASED ON A SELF-EXECUTING
OHIO REVISED CODE STATUTE AND [THE] OHIO
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, AND UPHOLD THE LAW AS
MANDATED BY THE OATH OF OFFICE TAKEN BY THE
MAGISTRATE AND JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE COURT.
Assignment of Error No. II
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT
TO RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION WITHOUT GIVING
THE PLAINTIFF(S) THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AS
PERMITTED IN OHIO R. CIV. PROC. 7(B)(2), JUV. R.
PROC. 19, AND HANCOCK COUNTY LOC. R. 1.15 A.
Assignment of Error No. I
{¶7} In his first assignment of error, Brown contends that the trial court
erred because it declined to grant his motions. Specifically, Brown asserts that, as
an obligor to pay child support, he was entitled to request copies of all records of
his support orders pursuant to R.C. 3125.15 and 3125.16, and Ohio Adm. Code
5101:12-1-20.1.
-4-
Case No. 5-09-20, 21
{¶8} R.C. 3125.15 governs maintenance of records of support orders and
provides that “[a] child support enforcement agency shall maintain records of
support orders being administered or otherwise handled by the agency pursuant to
sections 3121.81 to 3121.86 of the Revised Code.” Additionally, R.C. 3125.16
governs review of records by an obligor, and provides that “[e]ach obligor and
each obligee under a support order may review all records maintained under
section 3125.15 of the Revised Code that pertain to the support order and any
other information maintained by the child support enforcement agency, except to
the extent prohibited by state or federal law.” (Emphasis added). Further, Ohio
Adm. Code 5101:12-1-20.1 provides, in pertinent part:
(A) This rule describes the requirements for the use,
protection, and dissemination of information that is collected
and maintained by an agency in the performance of support
enforcement program functions. For purposes of this rule,
"inspect" means that an authorized person may view any
document containing information about the individual.
(B) The agency shall only disclose information for purposes
directly connected with any of the following:
(1) The support enforcement program * * *
***
(F) Only information concerning the individual may be
disclosed. Information about any other individual in the case
may not be disclosed and must be redacted from any document
that will be disclosed to the authorized person unless the agency
receives written permission from the other individual.
***
(H) In accordance with section 3125.16 of the Revised Code,
the obligor and obligee in a support order may review and
request copies of all records that pertain to the support order
and any other information about which the person is the subject
that is maintained by the agency
-5-
Case No. 5-09-20, 21
{¶9} Initially, we note that Brown’s argument presents an issue of first
impression for this Court, and, it appears, for Ohio, as we can find no cases
interpreting, or even referencing, this administrative code provision.
{¶10} Although Brown is correct that R.C. 3125.16 permits obligors under
support orders to review all records maintained pursuant to R.C. 3125.15
pertaining to that support order, he ignores the statute’s express limitation: “* * *
except to the extent prohibited by state or federal law.” R.C. 3125.16. Although
Ohio Adm. Code 5101:12-1-20.1(H) reiterates the right of an obligor to obtain
records pertaining to a support order pursuant to R.C. 3125.16, subsection (F)
limits that right, providing that:
[o]nly information concerning the individual may be disclosed.
Information about any other individual in the case may not be
disclosed and must be redacted from any document that will be
disclosed to the authorized person unless the agency receives
written permission from the other individual.
We interpret this provision as limiting the records Brown may review to those
concerning himself (the individual), and that any information about other
individuals contained in the records, including Brown’s children, is required to be
redacted from the records absent written permission.
{¶11} Here, Brown sought “complete, unredacted copies” of the entire
case files of the child support cases for which he was the obligor. This broad
request would necessarily contain information to which he was not entitled to
-6-
Case No. 5-09-20, 21
receive pursuant to the limitations in Ohio Adm. Code 5101:12-1-20.1(F). Thus,
we find that the trial court did not err in denying Brown’s requests.
{¶12} Accordingly, we overrule Brown’s first assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. II
{¶13} In his second assignment of error, Brown argues that the trial court
erred when it ruled on his motions without giving Kathleen and Tina the
opportunity to respond. Specifically, Brown contends that Civ.R. 7(B)(2), Juv.R.
19, and Hancock County Loc.R. 1.15(A), required the trial court to wait at least
fourteen days before ruling on his motions, and that the trial court waited only
four days. We find that Brown lacks standing to raise this issue.
{¶14} “‘It is well established in Ohio that an appeal lies only on behalf of a
party aggrieved. Such party must be able to show that he has a present interest in
the subject matter of the litigation and that he has been prejudiced by the judgment
of the lower court.’ One may not challenge an alleged error committed against a
non-appealing party absent a showing that the challenger has been prejudiced by
the alleged error.” In re Sherman, 3d Dist. Nos. 5-06-21, 5-06-22, 5-06-23, 2006-
Ohio-6485, ¶8, quoting In re D.H., 8th Dist. No. 82533, 2003-Ohio-6478, ¶7,
citing In re Love (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 111; In re Cook, 3d Dist. No. 5-98-16,
1998 WL 719524.
{¶15} Here, neither Kathleen nor Tina appealed from the trial court’s
decision, and Brown has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the trial
-7-
Case No. 5-09-20, 21
court’s actions. Accordingly, Brown has no standing to raise this issue on behalf
of Kathleen or Tina.
{¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Judgments Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/jnc
-8-