Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum
JOHN W. JAMISON, IV Plaintiff-Appellant
ANNA M. MASSEY Defendant-Appellee
from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division,
Case No. DE2017-0496
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN W. JAMISON, IV, Pro Se Inmate
#716112 Madison Correctional Institution
Defendant-Appellee HERBERT W. BAKER
W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle
E. Wise, Jr., 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.
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
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
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
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 ...