Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking
from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, Case No. 11-DR-01162 RPW
Plaintiff-Appellee PHILIP L. PROCTOR
Defendant-Appellant OMRAN ABDUL-KHALIQ, PRO SE
JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
Defendant-appellant Omran Abdul-Khaliq ("Father")
appeals the September 30, 2016 Opinion and Judgment Entry and
the February 23, 2017 Opinion and Judgment Entry entered by
the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
Division, which overruled his objections to the
Magistrate's June 13, 2016, and July 27, 2016 Decisions,
recommending Father's parenting time be suspended and
plaintiff-appellee Andrea Jagodzinski ("Mother") be
permitted to relocate to the state of Florida with the
parties' minor child, and approved and adopted said
decisions as orders of the court.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother and Father are the biological parents of one child.
The parties were never married. Mother filed a complaint to
establish paternity on June 6, 2006, in Franklin County. The
parties executed a shared parenting plan in June, 2009. On
May 31, 2011, Mother filed a motion for emergency custody
order and a motion to reallocate parental rights and
responsibilities. The case was transferred to the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, on
July 13, 2011. The parties subsequently reached a settlement
agreement, which the trial court modified by Agreed Judgment
Entry filed February 10, 2012. The parties essentially agreed
to return to the terms of the 2009 shared parenting plan with
Between June, 2012, and December, 2013, both parties filed
numerous contempt motions, ex parte motions for custody, and
a petition for civil protection order, which was ultimately
denied. Over the course of four days between November, 2013,
and February, 2014, the magistrate conducted a final hearing
on the parties' motions. The magistrate filed his
decision on April 21, 2014, recommending the shared parenting
agreement be terminated, and Mother be granted sole custody
of the child. Father filed objections to the decision on May
Subsequently, Father was indicted on one count of
intimidation, in violation of R.C. 2921.03, a felony of the
third degree; one count of trademark counterfeiting, in
violation of R.C. 2913.34, a misdemeanor of the first degree;
and one count of impersonating a peace officer, in violation
of R.C. 2921.51, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. As a
result, Mother filed an ex parte motion for emergency custody
of the minor child. The magistrate granted Mother's
motion, designating her as the temporary legal custodian of
the child, and suspending Father's parenting time.
On March 26, 2015, the trial court overruled Father's
objections to the magistrate's April 21, 2014 decision,
and approved and adopted said decision as order of the court.
Via Judgment Entry filed April 24, 2015, the trial court
terminated the shared parenting plan, and granted sole
custody of the child to Mother. Father filed a motion for new
trial, which the trial court denied. Father appealed the
April 24, 2015 Judgment Entry, and this Court affirmed.
Jagodzinski v. Abdul-Khaliq, 5th Dist.
Licking App. No. 15-CA-31, 2015-Ohio-5510.
On May 14, 2015, Father was convicted in Licking County Court
of Common Pleas Case No.2014 CR 00305, of one count each of
intimidation, trademark counterfeiting, and impersonating a
peace officer, and sentenced to a period of incarceration of
Via Judgment Entry filed February 12, 2016, the trial court
reactivated the case which had been stayed pending the
appeal, and scheduled the matter for final hearing on April
18, 2016. Father requested a continuance of the hearing due
to his incarceration, which the trial court denied. Mother
filed a Notice of Intent to Relocate on April 18, 2016, and a
motion to suspend Father's parenting time on April 19,
2016. Father filed an objection to Mother's intent to
relocate, and requested the trial court enter an order
restraining Mother from removing the child from the area,
pending "all final outcome of [Father's] criminal
appeal." The magistrate scheduled an oral hearing on
Father's objection for July 18, 2016. The magistrate
further ordered Mother be restrained from permanently
removing the child from Licking County, Ohio, pending the
outcome of the hearing.
The magistrate filed a decision on June 13, 2016,
recommending Father's parenting time be suspended. The
[Father] has been and is presently incarcerated in the Ohio
penal system after having been convicted of a felony offense
of intimidation. The Magistrate is not persuaded or convinced
that the parties' son's best interest will be served
by mandating [Mother] to transport the child to prison to
visit with [Father] in accordance with Local R. 19.0, which
is the current parenting time order, or pursuant to another
arrangement at this time.
The Court retains jurisdiction over the parenting time issue.
Once he is released from prison, [Father] may file a motion
requesting that his parenting time be reinstated.
Magistrate's June 13, 2016 Decision at 2.
On June 27, 2016, Father filed objections to the
magistrate's decision as well as a motion to continue the
July 18, 2016 hearing. Father requested the continuance due
to his incarceration, his expected mid-July release date, and
his attorney's lack of contact with him. Via
Magistrate's Order filed July 6, 2016, the magistrate,
having "reviewed [Father's] motion as well as the
Court's docket of this matter, overruled Father's
request for a continuance.
The magistrate filed a decision on July 27, 2016,
recommending Mother and the child be permitted to relocate to
Florida. The magistrate found Mother had received "an
advantageous employment offer" in Florida, and she and
the child would be able to reside with Mother's mother
until she was in a position to move to a home of her own. The
magistrate further found Mother's mother had "an
excellent, loving relationship" with the child. The
[Mother's] testimony further establishes that [she] has
bona fide concerns for her personal safety in relation to
[Father] once he is released from prison, as she believes he
blames her for his current incarceration. The Magistrate
finds that [Mother's] concerns are reasonable in light of
the evidence admitted into the record during the post-decree
litigation that took place in this matter during 2011 through
the present. Further, the evidence presented concerning
[Father's] 2015 felony conviction for intimidating a
police officer and veiled threats contained in his sentencing
statement before the General Division in August of 2015 does
not diminish [Mother's] concerns. Magistrate's July
27, 2016 Decision at 3-4.
Via Opinion and Judgment Entry filed September 30, 2016, the
trial court overruled Father's objections to the
magistrate's June 13, 2016 decision, and approved and
adopted said decision as order of the court. Via Opinion and
Judgment Entry filed February 23, 2017, the trial court
overruled Father's objections to the magistrate's
July 27, 2016 decision, and approved and adopted said
decision as order of the court.
It is from these judgment entries Father appeals, assigning
I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, PREJUDICED THE
APPELLANT AND VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN IT DENIED
THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE APRIL 18, 2016
CONTEMPT HEARING AND THE JULY 18, 2016 RELOCATION HEARING.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE PREJUDICE OF
THE APPELLANT WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO
CONTINUE AFTER HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FAILED TO SHOW FOR TWO
SCHEDULED COURT HEARINGS OR FILE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
ATTORNEY OF RECORD.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT
AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO SUSPEND DEFENDANT'S PARENTING TIME WITHOUT AN
ORAL HEARING, REFUSAL TO SCHEDULE AN IN-CHAMBER INTERVIEW OF
THE MINOR CHILD, GRANTED PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO SEAL