from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of
Domestic Relations (C.P.C. No. 05DR-3266)
J. Pallone, pro se.
1} Defendant-appellant, Roman Pallone, appeals from
numerous rulings and orders involving post-decree issues in
his divorce case. For the following reasons, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
FACTS AND CASE HISTORY
2} The parties Roman and Denise Pallone were married
on June 7, 1997 and had three children born during their
marriage. On January 27, 2006, the parties filed an agreed
judgment entry decree of divorce and an agreed shared
parenting plan/decree. On March 21, 2013, Denise Pallone
moved for termination or modification of the shared parenting
plan and filed a motion for contempt, alleging Roman failed
to abide by the terms of the agreed entries.
3} On May 16, 2013, Roman filed a motion to dismiss
Denise's motion for contempt. On May 24, 2013, Roman
filed a motion to dismiss Denise's motion for termination
or modification of the agreed shared parenting plan. On
October 21, 2013, Roman filed a motion for contempt, alleging
that Denise had failed to comply with the agreed entries. On
February 13, 2014, Roman filed a motion to attribute
affirmative responses. On April 22, 2014, Roman filed a
motion to compel discovery, a motion to interview the
children, and a motion to appoint an attorney advocate for
the children. On April 23, 2014, Roman filed an amended
motion for contempt.
4} The trial court's magistrate held hearings on
the matter for more than 10 days in April, May, and June
2014. On February 6, 2015, the magistrate filed a decision
which the trial court adopted on the same day. On April 1,
2015, Roman filed 35 objections to the magistrate's
decision. Roman filed a motion for a transcript at public
expense, asserting he was unable to afford the cost. On April
2, 2015, the trial court denied Roman's motion for
transcript at public expense. On April 9, 2015, Roman filed a
motion for alternatives to transcript. On April 10, 2015,
Denise filed a memorandum contra to Roman's objections.
Also on April 10, 2015, the trial court filed Roman's
affidavit of indigency which was signed by Roman on April 1,
5} On May 1, 2015, the trial court filed a judgment
entry denying Roman's April 9, 2015 motion for
alternatives to transcript. On June 2, 2015, Roman filed a
motion for reconsideration of the trial court's May 1,
2015 decision. On June 10, 2015, Denise filed a motion to
enforce jail sentence, asserting that Roman had failed to
purge the finding of contempt entered in the magistrate's
February 6, 2015 decision.
6} On June 11, 2015, Roman filed a motion for an
extension of time to supplement his objections to the
magistrate's decision. On July 1, 2015, the trial court
granted Roman's June 11, 2015 motion. On the same date,
the trial court filed a judgment entry denying Roman's
June 2, 2015 motion for reconsideration. On July 17, 2015,
the trial court filed a decision and entry denying
Roman's objections to the magistrate's decision for
failure to file a complete transcript. Roman appealed this
decision and entry to this court on August 17, 2015.
7} On September 29, 2016, we remanded the case to
the trial court to determine whether Roman's affidavit of
indigency is credible. We also ordered that the trial court
must review the partial transcripts submitted by Roman and
determine whether the portions of the transcripts, in
addition to any other material submitted by Roman, pursuant
to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), are sufficient for the court to
resolve Roman's objections.
8} On May 4, 2017, the trial court's decision
and entry denied and dismissed all of Roman's 35
objections to the magistrate's decision with the
exception that one objection was found moot, one was
voluntarily withdrawn, and one was granted in part and denied
in part. The trial court thoroughly considered each and every
factor inherent in the magistrate's decision to award
Denise sole custody of the minor children, and concurred with
the magistrate's decision to terminate the parties'
shared parenting plan. (May 4, 2017 Decision and Entry at
34.) The trial court found that Denise is better suited to
serve as the residential parent and legal custodian of the
children. Id. Roman timely appealed the trial
court's May 4, 2017 decision and entry.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR AND STANDARD OF APPELLATE
9} Roman Pallone has assigned 20 errors for our
[I.] The trial court erred in denying Roman's motions
dated February 13, 2014 and April 22, 2014 with regard to
Requests for Admission.
[II.] The trial court erred in its handling of Roman's
April 22, 2014 Motion to Compel Discovery with regard to
[III.] The trial court erred in its denial of Roman's
Motion to Dismiss and in not enforcing the mediation
requirement of the parties' 2006 Agreed Shared Parenting
[IV.] The trial court erred in its decision to appoint a new
GAL when the original GAL was still assigned and available to
[V] The trial court erred in denying Roman's Motion to
Appoint an Attorney Advocate for the children.
[VI.] The trial court erred in finding that the guardian ad
litem completed her investigation pursuant to the local rules
and rules of superintendence.
[VII.] The trial court erred in its reliance upon the
guardian ad litem's recitation of her investigation and
interviews, as well as her opinion, in determining its
[VIII.] The trial court erred in excluding from evidence two
of Roman's voicemail recordings and an email.
[IX.] The trial court erred in not finding that Denise has
continuously or willfully denied Roman parenting time.
[X.] The trial court erred in finding that the right of first
refusal is vague and not in the best interest of the
[XI.] The trial court erred in finding no evidence to the
amount of parenting time Appellant was denied under the ...