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.

Jamison v. Massey

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

July 30, 2018

JOHN W. JAMISON, IV Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ANNA M. MASSEY Defendant-Appellee

          Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. DE2017-0496

          For Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN W. JAMISON, IV, Pro Se Inmate #716112 Madison Correctional Institution

          For Defendant-Appellee HERBERT W. BAKER

          Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          Wise, Earle, J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, John W. Jamison, IV, appeals the April 5, 2018 decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division, denying in part his request for parenting time with his minor child. Defendant-Appellee is the child's mother, Anna M. Massey.[1]

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} Appellant and appellee have a child together, E.J., born February 24, 2010. The parties were never married. Paternity was established in the state of Florida in June 2011. All parties currently reside in Ohio.

         {¶ 3} In June 2015, appellant was incarcerated on drug trafficking convictions. His expected release date is in early November 2018.

         {¶ 4} On June 27, 2017, appellant filed a complaint for parentage, allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, and parenting time. Appellant sought video visits, telephone calls, and physical visits with the minor child during his incarceration. Appellant also sought a shared parenting plan upon his release from prison.

         {¶ 5} A hearing before a magistrate was held on January 29, 2018. Appellant "appeared" telephonically. By decision filed February 1, 2018, the magistrate noted the parties agreed that appellee would be designated the child's residential parent and legal custodian; therefore, the only remaining issue was parenting time with the child. The magistrate determined appellant would be permitted to communicate with the minor child only in writing.

         {¶ 6} Appellant filed objections, but did not file a transcript of the hearing. By judgment entry filed April 5, 2018, the trial court denied the objections, and approved and adopted the magistrate's decision.

         {¶ 7} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

         I

         {¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT ACTED CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILD, [E.M.J.], WHEN IT DENIED MR. JOHN W. JAMISON, IV IN-PERSON VISITS, VIDEO VISITS AND TELEPHONIC CONTACT WITH APPELLANT'S SON WHILE HE IS INCARCERATED."

         II

         {¶ 9} "THE TRIAL COURT ACTED CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILD [E.M.J.], WHEN IT DENIED MR. JOHN W. JAMISON, IV A CHANCE TO BUILD A BONDING RELATIONSHIP DURING THE REMAINING TIME ...


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.