In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217 (Ohio 7/23/2003)

• Decision Date: 23 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. 03-AP-046.,03-AP-046.
• Citation: 2003 Ohio 7351,101 Ohio St.3d 1217
• Parties: In re Disqualification of Floyd. In re S.G., a Minor.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 1

101 Ohio St.3d 1217

2003 Ohio 7351

In re Disqualification of Floyd In re S.G., a Minor.

No. 03-AP-046.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided July 23, 2003.

On Affidavit of Disqualification in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, case No. AD96992065.

MOYER, C.J.

{¶1} This affidavit of disqualification was filed pro se by Philip J. Cronmiller, father of the minor S.G., seeking the disqualification of Judge Alison Floyd from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

{¶2} The underlying case is a complicated, protracted dependency and custody proceeding that was initiated in 1996, the year in which the child was born. However, Judge Floyd has been assigned to the case since only January 2001.

{¶3} The majority of the affidavit concerns affiant's disagreement with rulings by Judge Floyd, specifically her failure to grant his motion to modify allocation of parental rights and responsibilities filed January 10, 2001. As support for his argument, affiant notes that Judge Floyd's decision on that motion was reversed by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which stated that "[t]he juvenile court failed utterly in its duties in this case" and "[t]he juvenile court in this case, therefore, issued an order that was both illogical and unsubstantiated by proper evidence." In re S.G., 8th Dist. No. 80952, 2003-Ohio-161, 2003 WL 125122. In her response, Judge Floyd posits that affiant's request for disqualification "is not one of bias or prejudice, but one of father's reliance on the opinion of the court of appeals."

{¶4} It is well established that dissatisfaction or disagreement with a judge's rulings, even if those rulings may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or prejudice and is not grounds for the judge's disqualification. In re Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459, citing State v. Baker (1984), 25 Ohio Misc.2d 11, 25 OBR 232, 495 N.E.2d 976.

{¶5} More troubling, however, is affiant's allegation in paragraph 7 that Judge Floyd engaged in an ex parte discussion with him. Affiant first raised this issue with Judge Floyd in a Supplemental Motion to Request Recusal that affiant filed in the trial court on April 23, 2003, prior to the filing of this affidavit of disqualification. In that supplemental motion, which is attached to the affidavit of disqualification, affiant stated that Judge Floyd had engaged in an ex parte discussion with him on the telephone on March 14, 2003. Attached to the motion was another affidavit from affiant,¹ in which he alleged that the judge engaged in a discussion of substantive matters concerning affiant's motion for "Ex Parte Immediate Possession and Custody" that he had filed on March 10, 2003.

{¶6} In her response to this affidavit of disqualification, Judge Floyd did not address, and therefore did not deny, the occurrence or substance of the ex parte conversation with affiant. This is particularly troubling in light of a similar allegation in another disqualification proceeding where it also was alleged that Judge Floyd initiated and engaged in an ex parte discussion of substantive matters. As in this matter now before me, the judge also did not address or deny the allegation. See In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1215, 2003-Ohio-7354, ___ N.E.2d ___.

{¶7} While the record before me may not lead to a finding of actual bias or prejudice, I do find that the unrefuted allegation of an ex parte discussion on substantive matters requires the judge's disqualification. In re Disqualification of Floyd, supra; In re Disqualification of...