Alomari v. Almajali

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 4349

Syllabus

The domestic relations court magistrate did not err by denying appellant's motion for a continuance after appellant became ill and could not attend a hearing and present rebuttal testimony in support of his petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against appellee where appellant did not proffer anything on the record to demonstrate how the domestic relations court's decision to deny the motion subjected appellant to any resulting prejudice. Additionally, the magistrate's decision to deny appellant's petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against appellee was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the magistrate found appellant's testimony regarding his claims of neglect/abuse on the part of appellee toward their two minor children lacked credibility given the fact that appellant did not provide any support evidence, such as pediatric records, police reports, or children services involvement, to support his claims. Finally, the magistrate did not err by denying appellant's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law because, as provided by Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(b), a magistrate's decision denying a petitioner's request for a domestic violence civil protection order against the respondent does not constitute a magistrate's order or a magistrate's decision under Civ.R. 53(D)(2) or (3) and is not subject to the requirements of those rules. This includes the request for findings of fact and conclusions of law as provided by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii).