Scott v. Kendricks

[Cite as Scott v. Kendricks, 

.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT




Antwan Scott,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,             :
                                                                  No. 23AP-658
v.                                                :            (C.P.C. No. 14JU-16146)

Sandra Kendricks,                                 :           (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Defendant-Appellee.              :



                                            D E C I S I O N

                                       Rendered on May 22, 2025


                 On brief: Antwan Scott, pro se. Argued: Antwan Scott.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
                      Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch

MENTEL, J.
        {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Antwan Scott, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch,
dismissing his objection to an administrative adjustment recommendation to the amount
of child support for the parties’ minor child because he failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing on the objection. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
        {¶ 2} Mr. Scott originally filed a complaint against defendant-appellee, Sandra
Kendricks, in 2015 for determination of parental rights and custody. In the years that
followed, child support orders were modified a number of times. Most recently, the
Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“FCCSEA”) filed an administrative
adjustment recommendation on January 17, 2023, to alter the amount of the child support
No. 23AP-658                                                                                 2

for the parties’ minor child. On February 27, 2023, Mr. Scott filed an objection to the
adjustment recommendation and requested a hearing for a court-ordered deviation from
the amount of child support recommended. On March 21, 2023, the trial court issued a
notice of hearing to inform the parties that a hearing date of May 30, 2023 had been set,
pursuant to R.C. 3121.031. On March 27, 2023, the trial court ordered both parties to
provide the financial documents required by R.C. 3119.68 to review the child support
amount, including tax returns, pay stubs, and health insurance policies.
         {¶ 3} The record does not reflect that the May 30, 2023 hearing was held. On
June 5, 2023, a request by the parties and order by the magistrate for a video conference
was entered for a July 28, 2023 hearing on Mr. Scott’s objection. The entry contained a
meeting identification number for the video conference. However, the next day, the
magistrate signed an entry that continued the May 30 hearing until July 28 because of
incomplete service, but the entry specified that it was to be an in-person hearing at the trial
court.
         {¶ 4} In an entry dated July 31, 2023, the July 28, 2023 hearing was also continued,
this time until September 27, 2023. A final continuance entered on September 29, 2023,
set a new hearing date until November 1, 2023 and specified “Hearing shall be in person.”
         {¶ 5} The final judgment entry reflects that Ms. Kendricks attended the hearing,
Mr. Scott “failed to appear,” and the magistrate dismissed his objection. (Oct. 2, 2023 Jgmt.
Entry at 2.) Accordingly, the FCCSEA’s adjustment recommendation was approved and
adopted. 

 Mr. Scott now appeals and asserts the following assignment of error:
               The [trial court erred by] not allowing me to appear via video
               due to where I reside and/or submit proper documentation so
               that a correct support order can be created.

         {¶ 6} A child support agency has authority to “periodically . . . review a child
support order” under R.C. 3119.60, and, before doing so, must inform the obligor and
obligee and request evidence relevant to the review from them. After conducting the
review, the agency must provide the obligor and obligee with the opportunity to request an
administrative hearing on the revised amount of child support. R.C. 3119.63(C). In
addition, “the obligor and obligee have a right to request a court hearing on the revised
amount of child support without first requesting an administrative hearing” from the
agency. R.C. 3119.63(D). If either the obligor or obligee so requests, the trial court “shall
No. 23AP-658                                                                                  3

schedule and conduct a hearing to determine whether the revised child support is the
appropriate amount and whether the amount of child support being paid under the court
child support order should be revised.” R.C. 3119.66. The trial court must give the parties
“at least thirty days’ notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing.” R.C. 3119.67. In
addition, the trial court must order both the obligor and obligee to provide copies of
financial documents relevant to the child support calculations, such as tax returns, pay
stubs, records of income received during the previous six months, and documentation of
the current and available health insurance policies. R.C. 3119.68. After the hearing, the
trial court must issue a child support order reflecting either the amount determined by the
child support agency, or, a revised amount based on its own determination. R.C. 3119.70.
On appeal, we review a child support order for an abuse of discretion. Booth v. Booth, 

 (1989); Chawla v. Chawla, 

 (10th Dist.).
       {¶ 7} According to Mr. Scott, he moved to California in 2018, after which the trial
court refused to allow him to appear remotely by video at proceedings. (Appellant’s Brief
at 2.) He alleges that when he did fly to Columbus to attend hearings concerning child
support, Ms. Kendricks “would purposefully not appear” so that the hearings would be
continued. 

 In the proceedings following the most recent child support adjustment, he
states that he made a request to the magistrate to appear via Zoom, but was informed that
the magistrate would not “allow[]” it “no matter the circumstances, also adding that she
was noting in the system not to allow it if I tried to request.” 

 According to Mr. Scott, he
“called in” before the most recent hearing and “tried to appear” using Zoom, but his
“request was denied and the hearing proceeded.” 

       {¶ 8} Mr. Scott paints a picture of frustration and extreme inconvenience.
Nevertheless, we can only review the child support order entered by the trial court for an
abuse of discretion, and it is no abuse of discretion to overrule his objection because he
failed to appear at the hearing on the child support adjustment. Although the record does
indicate that the magistrate required the parties to appear in person, Mr. Scott’s allegations
cannot otherwise be corroborated by the record, which mainly reflects a series of
continuances resulting from the clerk’s inability to serve him with notice of the hearings.
       {¶ 9} Furthermore, Mr. Scott has not invoked any statute or rule to support his
allegation that the trial court’s requirement that he appear in person amounts to error. The
No. 23AP-658                                                                                 4

current policy of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic
Relations, Juvenile Branch does not appear to favor remote appearances. On the court’s
webpage of Frequently Asked Questions, the query “May I appear electronically” is
answered in the negative: “Unless otherwise specifically ordered, all parties and counsel
must appear in person.” Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic
Relations      and       Juvenile         Branch,    Frequently       Asked          Questions,
https://drj.fccourts.org/DRJ.aspx?PN=FAQ.htm            (accessed      May      1,       2025)
[https://perma.cc/5ZWH-3ZHW]. The Supreme Court of Ohio convened a task force on
“Improving Court Operations Using Remote Technology” after the COVID-19 pandemic,
and the “Overall Recommendation” that resulted was: “Courts should continue the use of
remote technology to conduct court proceedings.” Report & Recommendations of the Task
Force on Improving Court Operations Using Remote Technology, Vol. I at 5 (2021).
Nevertheless, it does not appear that all of Ohio’s courts have taken the recommendation
to heart.
       {¶ 10} Finally, we note that Mr. Scott’s allegation that the trial court did not permit
him to “submit proper documentation” is without merit. (Appellant’s Brief at 3.) Under
R.C. 3119.68, a court is required to order the parties to provide the financial documentation
relevant to an evaluation of the administrative adjustment recommended by the child
support agency. Here, the trial court complied with the statute in its entry of March 27,
2023, when it “ORDERED” Mr. Scott and Ms. Kendricks “to bring to the hearing” the
documents required by R.C. 3119.68. Finding no error in the trial court’s application of the
statute or the process afforded Mr. Scott, we overrule his sole assignment of error and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
                                                                        Judgment affirmed.

                            DORRIAN and BOGGS, JJ., concur.