Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Midkiff v. Kuzniak

December 3, 2008

NICOLE MIDKIFF, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT KUZNIAK, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division of Mahoning County, Ohio Case No. 96JI907.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donofrio, J.

OPINION

JUDGMENT: Affirmed.

JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Mary DeGenaro.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert Kuzniak, Jr., appeals from Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division judgments denying his motion for a modification of visitation/custody, denying his motion to require plaintiff-appellee, Nicole Midkiff, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt, and denying his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

{¶2} This case originated in 1996 when appellee filed a contested paternity complaint against appellant. It was determined that appellant is the father of appellee's daughter Chrysta (d.o.b.10/25/95).

{¶3} Since that time, this case has been ongoing. The docket now exceeds 45 pages and this is the fourth time the case has been before us on appeal. See Midkiff v. Kuzniak, 7th Dist. No. 06-MA-155, 2007-Ohio-5936; Midkiff v. Kuzniak, 7th Dist. No. 06-MA-181, 2006-Ohio-6249; Midkiff v. Kuzniak, 7th Dist. No. 06-MA-66, 2006-Ohio-6243.

{¶4} After appellant's last appeal, appellee filed a motion requesting that the court terminate appellant's standard order of visitation and instead grant appellant restricted supervised visitation and requesting an in-camera interview of the parties' daughter. Appellant then filed a multi-branch motion requesting, among other things:

(1) that the court order appellee to immediately provide him visiting time with their daughter or be held in contempt; (2) a modification of visitation to increase his visitation time or a change in custody naming him as the residential parent; and (3) a show cause hearing to determine if appellee was in contempt of the visitation order.

{¶5} Before ruling on the parties' motions, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether appellant had paid his child-support arrearage. The trial court had previously ordered that appellant pay his arrearage or serve a 30-day jail sentence for contempt. The court found that appellant had been given an additional 13 months to pay his $2,660.45 arrearage and that he had not done so. Therefore, it ordered appellant to serve the previously ordered 30-day jail sentence.

{¶6} Next, the court held a hearing on the parties' motions. It entered its judgment on February 19, 2008. The court made the following orders. The praecipes for subpoenas filed by appellant were not in compliance with Juv.R. 17(C) and were therefore dismissed. Appellee's motion for an in-camera interview of the parties' daughter was granted and the court conducted the interview that day. Appellant's motion for a psychological evaluation of all parties was granted. Appellant's motion for modification of visitation/custody was denied as moot. Appellee's motion for restricted supervised visitation was denied as moot. The court's standard order of visitation was to continue.

{¶7} On February 27, 2008, appellant filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. On March 24, the trial court found that appellant's motion failed to identify what decision appellant was seeking findings of fact and conclusions of law from. The court further found that it appeared appellant was attempting to have the court issue findings relative to the contempt orders concerning appellee. However, the court found that his motion was devoid of specific citations as to any judgment entry. Finally, the court found that there were no current judgment entries to which Civ.R. 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law would apply. Thus, the court denied appellant's motion.

{ΒΆ8} Appellant filed a single notice of appeal from both the February 19 and the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.