In re Giesler
| Decision Date | 13 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–AP–083.,11–AP–083. |
| Citation | 985 N.E.2d 486,135 Ohio St.3d 1201 |
| Parties | In re DISQUALIFICATION of GIESLER. In re M.N. et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREOn Affidavit of Disqualification in Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 20930097, 20930098, and 20930099.
[Ohio St.3d 1201]{¶ 1} Loretta Riddle, counsel for J.N., the biological mother of the minor children at issue in the underlying case, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 to disqualify Judge Kathleen L. Giesler from acting on any further proceedings in the above-referenced cases, now pending in the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Ottawa County.
{¶ 2} Attorney Riddle contends that Judge Giesler must be disqualified because she presides over the HOPE Court. In 2008, the Ottawa County Juvenile Court created its Family Dependency Treatment Court, a specialized docket known as the HOPE (“Helping Our Parents Excel”) Court, with financial assistance and ongoing administrative support from the Supreme Court of Ohio. The HOPE Court is designed to help parents who have substance-abuse problems and have had children removed from their care. Attorney Riddle alleges that Judge Giesler's participation in the HOPE Court program creates a conflict of interest leading to bias against her client. Riddle claims that, through her participation in HOPE Court, Judge Giesler has engaged in improper ex parte communications with parties and witnesses, thereby creating an appearance of impropriety.
{¶ 3} Judge Giesler has responded in writing to the concerns raised in the affidavit. The judge explains that J.N. entered the HOPE Court program in February 2010, but was removed from the program in November 2010 after being sanctioned numerous times for failing to abide by the court's treatment orders. Judge Giesler denies harboring any bias or prejudice against J.N. and maintains that no party gained any advantage from her participation in HOPE Court.
{¶ 4} For the reasons to follow, no basis has been established for ordering the disqualification of Judge Giesler.
[Ohio St.3d 1202]Relevant Facts
{¶ 5} On December 29, 2009, J.N. was arrested for child endangerment after two of her children, ages one and two, were found wandering outside the home while J.N. was passed out on the couch. On December 30, 2009, the Ottawa County Department of Job and Family Services (“Family Services”) filed a complaint charging that J.N.'s minor children were neglected and dependent. All three of J.N.'s children were removed from her home and placed in temporary custody. On January 13, 2010, J.N. admitted that the allegations of dependency were true, and the allegations pertaining to neglect were withdrawn.
{¶ 6} J.N. voluntarily entered HOPE Court in February 2010. During J.N.'s time in the HOPE Court program, Judge Giesler participated regularly in J.N.'s treatment-team meetings. J.N. also routinely appeared before the judge to review her progress during the first two stages of the program. The trial court, however, terminated J.N. from HOPE Court in December 2010, after sanctioning her several times for failing to abide by the court's treatment orders.
{¶ 7} On January 25, 2011, J.N. agreed that legal custody of the children should be awarded to Mary Ann Yost, J.N.'s former aunt by marriage. On April 28, 2011, Judge Giesler denied Yost legal custody, but instead ordered that the children remain in Yost's temporary custody pending a review hearing on May 31, 2011.
{¶ 8} On June 3, 2011, Family Services moved the trial court to award legal custody to Yost. On or around June 30, 2011, Riddle filed a motion to return the children to J.N. and to award J.N. legal and residential custody. According to Riddle, the trial court held hearings on these motions on July 1 and August 2, 2011, with a final hearing set for August 23, 2011. Riddle filed the instant affidavit of disqualification on August 15, eight days before the final hearing.
{¶ 9} Attorney Riddle first claims that Judge Giesler must be disqualified because she engaged in improper ex parte communications with the parties and certain witnesses while presiding over J.N.'s HOPE Court program. Attorney Riddle, however, overlooks the fact that Jud.Cond.R. 2.9(A)(6) states that a judge may engage in ex parte communications “when administering a specialized docket, provided the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage while in the specialized docket program as a result of the ex parte communication.” Judge Giesler states that no party gained any advantage as a result of J.N.'s participation in the HOPE Court specialized docket, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Angeles v. Angeles, Case No. 17 CAF 12 0078
... ... The matters raised by Mother are challenges to the magistrate's evidentiary rulings. Challenges to the judge's evidentiary rulings and other legal decisions are not evidence of bias or prejudice. In re Disqualification of Giesler, 135 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2011-Ohio-7083, 985 N.E.2d 486, 10 citing In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d Page 13818, 4. A trial court possesses broad discretion with respect to the admission of evidence and an appellate court will not disturb evidentiary ... ...
-
State v. Blassingame (In re Mallory)
...is not the mechanism for determining whether a judge has violated a party's constitutional rights." In re Disqualification of Giesler , 135 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2011-Ohio-7083, 985 N.E.2d 486, ¶ 10. And Mr. Blassingame's claim that Judge Mallory is biased in favor of the prosecutor's office bec......
-
Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora (In re Tucker)
... ... In re Disqualification of D'Apolito , 139 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2014-Ohio-2153, 11 N.E.3d 279, 5. Nor is this the appropriate forum in which to determine whether Mr. Hora was properly served or whether his due-process rights were violated. In re Disqualification of Giesler , 135 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2011-Ohio-7083, 985 N.E.2d 486, 10 ("it is well settled that an affidavit of disqualification is not the mechanism for determining whether a judge has violated a party's constitutional rights").{ 6} The affidavit of disqualification is denied. The cases may proceed before ... ...
-
State v. Clay (In re Yost)
...lead to the judge's disqualification from other proceedings involving the same parties. See In re Disqualification of Giesler , 135 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2011-Ohio-7083, 985 N.E.2d 486, ¶ 9. Similarly, the fact that a judge may have been exposed to certain information about a participant in a sp......