Franklin Cnty. Children Servs. v. Copley, 22AP-159

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
Writing for the CourtDORRIAN, J.
Citation2022 Ohio 3406
PartiesFranklin County Children Services, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sarah Copley, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number22AP-159
Decision Date27 September 2022


Franklin County Children Services, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Sarah Copley, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22AP-159

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

September 27, 2022

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 21JU-11389, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch.

On brief: Robert J. McClaren, for appellee.

On brief: Sarah Copley, pro se. Argued: Sarah Copley.



{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Sarah Copley, appeals from the February 11, 2022 judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch ("juvenile court"), ordering her to pay child support to plaintiff-appellee, Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS"). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On November 16, 2021, FCCS, as the caretaker of S.S., filed a complaint to set support against appellant. The complaint alleged appellant is the mother of S.S., a minor child. The complaint further alleged that FCCS was awarded temporary custody of S.S. on July 26, 2019 in case No. 19JU-6065. Finally, the complaint alleged that, pursuant to R.C. 3103.03, appellant has an obligation to provide support for S.S.


{¶ 3} The complaint was initially set for a hearing on February 15, 2022 and then reassigned for a hearing on February 9, 2022 before a magistrate of the juvenile court. The record indicates that personal service of the complaint, summons, and notice of hearing on February 9, 2022 was completed upon appellant by a process server on December 8, 2021 at 3:25 p.m.

{¶ 4} The magistrate held a hearing on February 9, 2022 and filed a decision on February 11, 2022. The decision indicates FCCS's attorney and affiant Britney Cider made an appearance at the hearing; however, there is no indication that appellant or anyone on her behalf appeared. The magistrate found that service was perfected upon appellant. The magistrate granted the complaint and set support ordering appellant to pay child support and cash medical support plus processing charges pursuant to the child support worksheet. The decision contained a notice as follows:

A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii) or Juv.R 40(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) or Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b).

(Emphasis added.) (Mag.'s Decision at 1.)

{¶ 5} On February 11, 2022, the juvenile court judge filed a judgment entry adopting the magistrate's decision, noting the magistrate filed its decision the same day, and that copies were mailed to the parties.

II. Assignment of Error

{¶ 6} Appellant appeals and assigns the following single assignment of error for our review:

The court erred on the information of father Brandon James Schlueb of child in case [S.S.] whereabouts. They stated he was incarcerated when in fact he had

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT