[Cite as C.L. v. J.K., 2017-Ohio-1024.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
C. L. C.A. No. 28297
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
J. K. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. DR-2005-04-1242
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 22, 2017
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, J.K., appeals from the judgments of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, adopting the magistrate’s decision and
overruling his objections to same. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} J.K. (“Father”) and his former spouse (“Mother”) divorced in 2005, and are the
parents of two minor children. Mother is the residential parent and sole custodian of both
children. In 2015, Father, acting pro se, moved the trial court for a modification of the existing
allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, and for Mother to be held in contempt. The
magistrate held four separate hearings relating to Father’s motions, and ultimately determined
that Mother should remain the residential parent and sole custodian of the children, and denied
his motion for contempt. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision shortly thereafter.
2
Father filed objections, which the trial court overruled. He now appeals, raising one assignment
of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
* * * WHERE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE GENERALLY SUBJECT TO THE
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW, THE
STANDARD APPLIES TO INFERENCES DRAWN FROM UNDISPUTED OR
STIPULATED FACTS THE COURT STATED THAT THE BENCH-TRIAL
FACT FINDINGS, WHETHER BASED ON ORAL OR OTHER EVIDENCE,
MUST NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. * * *
BASED ITS DECISION OR ORDER ON AN ERRONEOUS FINDING OF
FACT IN A PERVERSE OR CAPRICIOUS MANNER[.] (SIC) * * * A
JUDGMENT BECOMES REVERSIBLE IF THE FACTUAL ISSUES ARE
REVIEWED IN A CLEARLY ERRONEOUS MANNER. [I]T WAS STATED
THAT A FINDING IS “CLEARLY ERRONEOUS” WHEN ALTHOUGH
THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, THE REVIEWING COURT ON THE
ENTIRE EVIDENCE IS LEFT WITH THE DEFINITE AND FIRM
CONVICTION THAT A MISTAKE HAS BEEN COMMITTED. * * *.
{¶3} Although Father’s assignment of error is difficult to decipher, he seems to assert
that the trial court abused its discretion when it adopted the magistrate’s decision because it was
based upon “clearly erroneous” findings. This Court, however, need not address the merits of
Father’s assignment of error because he has failed to properly develop an argument in support of
his position.
{¶4} By way of summary, Father’s merit brief details his turbulent relationship with
Mother, the lengthy history of this case, the challenges his children are facing personally and
academically, his vehement dislike and disapproval of the magistrate and trial judge, his
criticisms of Mother’s parenting skills and mental health, his criticisms of the magistrate and trial
judge’s treatment of the guardian ad litem, and the lengths he has gone to in his attempts to fix
the irreparable damage that the court system has supposedly inflicted upon his children. More
specifically, he asserts that the magistrate and trial judge are corrupt and should be investigated
3
and disbarred, the trial judge should be removed from this case and from office, Mother should
be charged with perjury, and the trial judge is guilty of treason, for which the magistrate is
jointly and severally liable. Father summarizes this case as a “never ending Jerry Springer
episode[,]” that is “corrupt in every aspect[,]” and asks this Court to reverse and remand the trial
court’s decision and to order a new trial.
{¶5} Father’s merit brief, however, contains no application of the relevant law to the
facts presented, nor any cogent analysis of the pertinent issues. At one point, Father offers a
“metaphysical explanation” of this case that includes references to Bell’s Principle, Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty Principle, and Magic Theory, none of which is legally relevant. Notably, Father
implicitly acknowledges the deficiencies in his merit brief, urging this Court to “overlook the
differences in [his] appellate brief and what is outlined in the Local Rules[,]” and to grant him
leeway considering this is “the most Jerry Springer Domestic case in U.S. history.” He states: “I
realize that some of what I will be asking for is out of the typical jurisdiction or the perceived
responsibility of the Appellate Court…but I am hoping that [this Court sees] the bigger
picture…and that God may not be as interested in legal loop holes[.]” Despite Father’s urging to
the contrary, the jurisdiction and responsibility of this Court is determined and limited by statute.
R.C. Chapter 2501. Accordingly, this Court has no authority to consider claims alleging
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, nor do we have the authority to initiate criminal
proceedings, investigate allegations of criminal conduct, or make findings of guilt.
{¶6} This Court has consistently held that “failure to comply with the rules governing
practice in the appellate courts is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal.” Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio
App.3d 41, 60 (9th Dist.1996). Regarding pro se litigants, we have stated that they “should be
granted reasonable leeway such that their motions and pleadings should be liberally construed so
4
as to decide the issues on the merits, as opposed to technicalities.” Sherlock v. Myers, 9th Dist.
Summit No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, ¶ 3. They, however, are “presumed to have knowledge of
the law and correct legal procedures so that [they] remain[] subject to the same rules and
procedures to which represented litigants are bound.” Id. This includes Appellate Rule
16(A)(7), which provides that an appellant’s brief must include “[a]n argument containing the
contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the
reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the
record on which appellant relies.” While Father’s merit brief does contain citations to legal
authority in the form of bullet-point lists at various places throughout his brief, he has not
developed any argument that applies the cited authority to the facts presented. See State v.
Georgeoff, 9th Dist. Medina No. 3195-M, 2002 WL 58003, *6-7 (overruling the appellant’s
assignment of error under Appellate Rules 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7) because the appellant failed to
apply the law to the facts presented).
{¶7} To the extent that an argument exists in support of Father’s assignment of error,
“it is not this court’s duty to root it out.” Cardone v. Cardone, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18349,
1998 WL 224934, *8 (May 6, 1998). Accordingly, we “disregard this inadequately argued
assignment of error.” Id., citing App.R. 12(A)(2) and App.R. 16(A)(7).
III.
{¶8} Father’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgement affirmed.
5
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
TEODOSIO, J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
J. K., pro se, Appellant.
C. L. pro se, Appellee.