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.

In re Appeal of Administrative Appeal Decision Issued By Ohio Department of Job & Family Services Bureau of State Hearings

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District

June 28, 2013

IN RE APPEAL OF: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION ISSUED BY OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU OF STATE HEARINGS

Administrative Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2011 CV 1095.

Polly A. Clay, pro se, (Appellant).

Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Rebecca L Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, (For Appellee-Ohio Department of Job and Family Services).

OPINION

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Polly Anne Clay, appeals from the Judgment Entry of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing her administrative appeal from a decision of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) Bureau of State Hearings, due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The issue to be determined by this court is whether a trial court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a ruling by the ODJFS on a child support arrears matter. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.

{¶2} On July 12, 2011, Clay requested a State Hearing from the ODJFS in relation to a child support action, challenging the manner in which the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) handled the disbursement of child support payments owed to her by her child's father.

{¶3} On October 18, 2011, the ODJFS Bureau of State Hearings issued a State Hearing Decision, noting that Clay "questioned the disbursement of payments and calculation of child support arrears owed to her." In its Findings of Fact, the hearing officer found that a September 7, 2007 Order of the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court terminated child support payments, based on Clay's child's emancipation, and ordered a support arrearage to be paid to Clay, which was based on the findings and recommendations of the CSEA. The Decision concluded Clay had not objected to the Cuyahoga Court Order and the arrears amount had been established by that Order. The hearing officer found that the CSEA was bound by that Order. The hearing officer recommended overruling the appeal.

{¶4} On November 4, 2011, an Administrative Appeal Decision was issued, affirming the Hearing Decision. At the end of that Decision, a "Notice to Appellant" section was included, stating that "[a]n Appellant who disagrees with this decision may appeal it to the court of common pleas pursuant to sections 119.12 and 5101.35(E) of the Revised Code."

{¶5} On December 2, 2011, Clay filed a notice of appeal in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, appealing from the November 4 Administrative Appeal Decision.

{¶6} ODJFS filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 27, 2011, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, since the Ohio Revised Code does not provide for judicial review of decisions rendered by the ODJFS Bureau of State Hearings on child support matters. A response was filed by Clay on March 14, 2012, asserting that parties adversely affected by agency orders can appeal such orders to the court of common pleas.

{¶7} On November 19, 2012, the lower court issued a Judgment Entry, holding that the director of Job and Family Services has the authority to adopt administrative rules for appeals of CSEA decisions and that, under the Ohio Administrative Code, judicial review does not apply to this matter. It further held that appeals "involving the child support program are limited to the administrative process." It granted the Motion to Dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

{¶8} Clay timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error.

{¶9} "The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting defendant-appellee's ODJFS' motion for summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 119.12 and R.C. 5101.35(E) (appeals by applicants, participants, and recipients) is boilerplate language that is attached to every administrative appeal decision that ODJFS makes and therefore is not subject to appeal. The vast majority of these decisions are in fact appealable to court under R.C. 5101.35."

{¶10} In her sole assignment of error, Clay argues that she had the right to judicial review of the child support matter and that such right is provided by law since, pursuant to R.C. 119.12, a party adversely affected by an agency order may appeal to the court of common pleas. She ...


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.