State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd

177 N.E.3d 1046

STATE of Ohio, EX REL., S.Y.C., Relator,

v.Judge Alison L. FLOYD, Respondent.

No. 110759

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

September 28, 2021

S.Y.C., pro se.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nora E. Poore, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

{¶ 1} Relator, S.Y.C., seeks writs of procedendo and mandamus directing respondent, Judge Alison L. Floyd, to issue rulings on motions that have been pending before respondent for an inordinate amount of time, and to either rule on other motions or set the matters for hearing. For the following reasons, we grant a writ of procedendo, deny the request for writ of mandamus as moot, and order respondent to issue rulings or set matters for hearing as directed below.

Procedural History

{¶ 2} On August 20, 2021, S.Y.C. filed a verified complaint alleging that numerous matters, some of which have been pending since before 2016, were submitted for decision after a trial that began on May 5, 2021. The complaint alleged that respondent has not issued any rulings on the matters submitted. She further alleged that several motions were filed between the time of the hearing and the filing of the complaint and no action has been taken on the motions — whether ruling on them or setting them for hearing.

{¶ 3} On August 31, 2021, this court, sua sponte, issued an alternative writ directing respondent to rule on motions that were submitted for determination during the May 5, 2021 hearing, and set any pending motions for hearing, or show cause why a writ should not issue. Respondent then timely filed a response arguing that additional time was needed to rule on the matters submitted to her for decision at the May hearing. Respondent asserted that the trial on the motions litigated at the May hearing was lengthy and exhibits submitted during the hearing numbered in the hundreds. Respondent also filed a motion to dismiss the present action on September 24, 2021. There, she again argued that more time was needed to properly rule on pending matters and that she has not unduly delayed ruling.

{¶ 4} A review of the procedural history of the underlying juvenile court cases involving S.Y.C.’s children, J.C. and G.C., is helpful to understand the frustration evident in S.Y.C.’s complaint. The juvenile case that underpins this action has previously been before this court multiple times. We have previously summarized the procedural history:

Mother [(S.Y.C.)] and Father have been feuding over custody and visitation issues since before G.C. was born. The children initially lived with Mother and her parents in Madison, Ohio, while Mother was commuting to medical school in Columbus. In 2009, when Mother began her residency, she moved with the children to Columbus, under a court order that she transport the children to visit Father, who is a physician in the Cleveland area, for 16 hours each week.

In June 2009, Mother accused Father of abusing her and J.C., and Mother refused to allow Father his visitation time. Both parties filed various motions, and ultimately the court determined that shared parenting was not feasible in this case, given the geographical distance between the parents and the court's conclusion that Mother was not likely to honor court-ordered parenting time with Father.

On December 22, 2009, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, named Father the residential parent and legal custodian of the children. Additionally, the court granted Mother, who was still living in Columbus at the time, graduated visitation with the children. This custody determination was affirmed on appeal in [ J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-008, 2010-Ohio-5401 [2010 WL 4398750].

Mother and Father again filed numerous subsequent motions, and the court issued various orders regarding topics ranging from when the children were available for telephone conversations to whether the children would retain Mother's surname. These orders were affirmed on appeal. See [ J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-121, 2012-Ohio-2242 [2012 WL 1820911] ; [ J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-103, 2013-Ohio-2042 [2013 WL 2154118].

On August 18, 2011, Mother filed a motion for allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and motion for shared parenting, which the trial court denied on August 22, 2012.

On September 17, 2012, and October 18, 2012, Mother filed a motion to modify parenting time/visitation. The court granted this motion on September 6, 2013, resulting in the following equal parenting time schedule: "Commencing * * * Sunday at 7:00 p.m. * * *, Mother's parenting time shall be increased so that children are with Mother for one week, until the following Sunday at 7:00 p.m. and are then with Father for one week, until the following Sunday at 7:00 p.m., on a rotating basis."

This equal parenting time order was affirmed on appeal in [ J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-092, 2014-Ohio-2454 [2014 WL 2567982].

On October 16, 2015, Mother filed a second motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities seeking "legal custody and residential parent status" of the children, or in the alternative, shared parenting. On December 1, 2015, Father filed a motion to modify parenting time, requesting that Mother's visitation be reduced.

On January 12, 2016, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, transferred this case to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, because, by this time, Mother and Father both lived in Cuyahoga County. The parties renewed their respective motions, and on December 1, 2016, and December 2, 2016, the court held hearings on these motions. On May 8, 2018, the court issued a journal entry stating, in part, as follows:

The Court does not find that based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change in circumstances has occurred in the child[ren], the child[ren's] residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child[ren].

In re J.C. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 107292 and 107294, 2019-Ohio-107, 2019 WL 193944, ¶ 3-11. On January 10, 2019, we reversed the above-referenced decision and remanded the matter to respondent for a new hearing on S.Y.C.’s motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Id. at ¶ 35. Even though no appeal of our decision was taken, the hearing that this court ordered did not take place until May 5, 2021.

{¶ 5} S.Y.C. was before this court in a later appeal. We again summarized the history pertinent to that appeal:

Mother [(S.Y.C.)] and Father have two minor children, J.C. and G.C. ("the children"). On December 22, 2009, by the Lake County Juvenile Court, Father was awarded sole custody and residential status of the children. As a result, Mother was designated as the child support obligor and ordered to pay $1,181.97 per month in child support. On September 17, 2012, Mother filed a motion to modify her visitation with the children, and that motion was granted on September 6, 2013. Mother's child support obligation was modified to $626.23 per month.

However, because of a typographical error adopted by the court, the child support was modified to $626.23 per month, per child, for a total of $1,252.46 a month. The magistrate journalized the incorrect child support amount even though the Lake County Child Support Enforcement Agency filed a document with the court demonstrating the correct amount of $626.23 per month. On October 16, 2015, Mother filed motions to waive and/or recalculate child support and to share federal tax credits.

On December 11, 2015, Mother filed a motion to transfer the case to Cuyahoga County from Lake County. The motion was granted, and Mother filed another motion to share federal tax credits and to waive or recalculate the child support order. On December 5, 2018, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court held a hearing on Mother's motions. The trial court did not issue its ruling until two years later, on April 13, 2020. The trial court found that the original child support order of $626.23 per month, per child, was in error, and the order should have awarded $626.23 per month.

Accordingly, the trial court ordered that Mother's motions to waive or recalculate the child support order and her motion to share the federal tax credits were granted, effective from December 5, 2018, not from October 16, 2015, when Mother originally filed her motion. The trial court reduced Mother's child support obligation to $0. The trial court also ordered that Father repay Mother within 30 days of the date of its order the overpayment of child support in the amount of $11,742.00 per child that Father received from October 16, 2015 to December 4, 2018. Father was also ordered to repay Mother any overpayment of child support he received after December 5, 2018.

In re J.C. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 109747 and 109748, 2021-Ohio-2451, 2021 WL 3012294, ¶ 2-5. In this appeal, on July 15, 2021, this court reversed in part respondent's orders and remanded to recalculate child support and to make the modification of child support retroactive to the date the motion was filed. Id. at ¶ 12, 21.

{¶ 6} The delay evident in the procedural history of these cases as recounted by this court would have perhaps been greater had S.Y.C. not filed previous original actions in this court. On two previous occasions, S.Y.C. filed complaints for writs of procedendo and mandamus. In a 2018 action, S.Y.C. sought to compel rulings on matters submitted to the court during a 2016 hearing:

In early December 2016, a hearing was conducted before a magistrate on Father's motion to modify parenting time and S.Y.C.’s motion to modify custody/visitation. The magistrate issued decisions on December 16, 2016 and

...