Case of Steven Schottenstien - Domestic Violence
Columbus, OH
Bexley, OH
Accused of emotionally and physically abusing his daughter. Steven Schottenstein is currently the president of the Jewish Federation of Columbus, OH. Steven has connections to Congregation Ahavas Sholom synagogue in Columbus and Congregation Torat Emet - The Main Street Synagogue in Bexley, OH.
In Cleveland the Shottenstein family has a great deal
of influence. There are many buildings carrying the Schottenstein name
such as "The JCC Schottenstein Auditorium, the Cleveland Schottenstein Chabad
House,
Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation
or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet
their own personal needs.
Articles About The Case
Schottenstein v. Schottenstein (11/29/2001)
Are All The Schottenstein's Guilty of Corrpution? (10/24/2002)
The Supreme Court of Ohio (02/04/2003)
Is Judge James Mason Biased? (04/2004)
Teen's Suit: Rich Man A Poor Dad (07/29/2004)
Family Court, New York County (08/22/2005)
M/I Schottenstein Homes (MHO) (09/07/2007)
Is Child Support An Option, Does It Speak To Who We Are As A People? (09/24/2007)
Stockholders of JP - What Would You Do With This Partner? (10/16/2007)
Articles on the Background on Steven Schottenstein
Steven Schottenstein, M/I Homes, Inc (MHO) - Salary, Compensation, Stock Options
Columbus Jewish leader dead at 75 (03/2004)
M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. Names New president and Announces Senior Management Changes.
Columbus Jewish Federation - Federation Past Presidents (2006)
National Housing Endowment Gets $1 Million Grant from M/I Homes (03/22/2006)
M/I sends off longtime exec with plenty of thanks for years of service (08/04/2006)
Jeffrey backers to present ideas to save mansion (09/21/2006)
M/I Homes fills empty board seat (11/10/2006)
M/I profit up despite charges, including $4.31M for former COO (07/27/2007)
Lion of Judah Women Experience Schottenstein Judaica Collection (10/23/2007)
The 2008 Grand Event (12/2007)
Executive Board Accepts Nominating Committee Recommendations
Also see:
Related Information
A Teen's Courage In The Face of Her Father's Abuse
December 15, 2001
Letter To the Editor
Schottenstein Abuse of Power
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/teenscourage12,15,01.htm
"Your goal in the dilemma as a custodial parent to your children is to strip permanently and forever, irrevocably, any rights of the children with their mother; is that what I heard you say?"
My name is Sarah Elizabeth Schottenstein and I have more courage than any adult in Columbus [Ohio] with the possible exception of my mother. I am sixteen years old, an honor student and I am here to tell you that my father, Steven Schottenstein, is a child abuser who has used physical violence on every member of my family. He has pushed, hit, thrown, twisted arms, choked, and smothered us. My father has used intimidation, isolation, emotional abuse, economic abuse, legal abuse and this past year has even had me locked up in institutions to cover up his actions. I am compelled to use the press to make known the crimes that have been committed against my family and me by my father because no one in the courts, especially Judge Jim Mason, will listen to my story. No one in Columbus will stand up to one of the richest men in town. They are all cowards.
When I was a student at the Columbus School for Girls, I won the Citizenship Award. My younger sister Abby, just received the same honor this past June.
None of that matters in Judge Mason's court. In 1998 my mother filed for divorce in order to protect us from my abusive father. My father dragged her back into court in a custody battle. Children's voices weren't heard in Judge Mason's courtroom. We were treated as non-existent individuals and forced against our will to be with my father. When we ran to our mother, my father had her jailed.
My mother was denied her rightful interest in my father's company. They were married for fifteen years. My mother raised us, while my father built up MI Schottenstein Homes. He became one of the richest men in this city. He makes 2.5 million dollars a year and has never paid a penny of child support in three years.
Steven Schottenstein, Corporate Chief Operating Officer at MI Schottenstein Homes, has failed his responsibilities as a father, a parent. He was a weekend father who felt he had to dominate everything to ensure he had absolute control. When my mother fought for our freedom, my father responded with a barrage of well-orchestrated litigation. He manipulated facts to decimate my mother, my sisters and me.
Why are we the only ones with enough courage to stand up to this bully?
My Aunt Jeanie Schottenstein, who co-chairs the domestic violence league, refused to help. She is the wife of Jay Schottenstein, Value City Owner, and close friend to my father. The Columbus Dispatch failed to act. Joel Chow from NBC turned his head too. Ronald Solove, my previous Guardian at litem, was also an ex-employee of the family law firm, Schottenstein Zox and Dunn. Mr. Solove neglected to listen to my sisters and my wishes and desires. He sided with my father. He crucified my mother, and helped sentence my mother to jail. This man destroyed the best years of my life, along with my family. Rhonda Schottenstein, my stepmother, signed the check which had me admitted into Cross Creek Manor, a juvenile delinquent camp. Dr. Steven Beck, a psychologist, wrote a personal letter to Judge Jim Mason that admitted me into Menniger Clinic, under false pretenses. He refused to testify about it. Barry H. Wolinetz, my abusive father's well-paid attorney, verbally attacked me in court, while I was testifying. My attorney had been fired.
No one wanted to fight a Schottenstein except us - his victims. Will nobody help? Will nobody stand up? A week after teachers from Columbus School for Girls had written letters of praise on my behalf about my achievements, my father had me locked up, first in Cross Creek Manor in Utah. There I was surrounded by suicidal teens, drug addicts, alcoholics, and prostitutes. The staff berated me, I had no contact with anyone, I was isolated from society; it was as though I didn't exist. Later my father had me moved to the Menninger Clinic, a psychiatric hospital in Kansas. They attempted to brainwash me, took every ounce of freedom I was ever granted, and forced me to live with a coke addict. My mail was monitored and so was every phone call with my mother, and my two younger sisters.
We are going back to court again. This time Judge James. W. Mason should disqualify himself. We - the children - are not irrelevant. This judge received eight citations of error for his prior decisions on our case. The Franklin County, Ohio, Tenth Appellate District stated," We no longer live in a time when children are mere chattels, with no rights and no inherent merit. We no longer live in a time when maxims such as 'spare the rod and spoil the child' are generally accepted. Instead, a parent who uses a rod is at real risk of child abuse charges, and/or loss of custody through juvenile court proceedings. "
I, Sarah Elizabeth Schottenstein, am a citizen of our United States of America. I am entitled by our United States Constitution to express my wishes and desires, to be treated equally, and be respected by every human being. Shame on those who think otherwise, and don't believe in justice. A promise I must propose, I will take on the responsibility, with the help of others, to ensure that children don't live in a world of violence; but more importantly are able to be free. Free from manipulation, money, power and control. Children's Rights are here to stay!
Author
Sarah Elizabeth Schottenstein © 2001
Schottenstein v.
Schottenstein
Columbus Law - November 29, 2001
http://ds.columbuslawlib.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Services/Document-1151
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jill D. Schottenstein, :Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Steven Schottenstein, Defendant-Appellee
(Sarah Schottenstein, minor child et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Third-Party : Defendants-Appellants).
________________________________________________
O P I N I O N
Rendered on November 29, 2001
________________________________________________
Kemp, Schaeffer, Rowe & Lardiere Co., L.P.A., and Harold R. Kemp, for appellant.
Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Barry H. Wolinetz and David C. Levine, for appellee.
Angela F. Albert Brown, for third-party appellants.
Ronald L. Solove, Guardian ad litem.
________________________________________________
APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
Division of Domestic Relations.
TYACK, J.
On January 29, 1998, Jill D. Schottenstein filed a complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, seeking a divorce from Steven Schottenstein. Mr. Schottenstein filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce. The parties had been married since April 19, 1983, and they had three children: Sarah, born February 8, 1986; Ashley, born June 20, 1987; and Abby, born November 21, 1988. On March 2, 1998, a guardian ad litem was appointed.
On March 26, 1998, a magistrate issued temporary orders, designating Ms. Schottenstein as the residential parent and legal custodian of the children. Mr. Schottenstein was granted companionship/visitation rights consisting of two evenings during the week and alternating weekends. Mr. Schottenstein was ordered to pay temporary child support in the amount of $8,889.67 per month and temporary spousal support in the amount of $4,500 per month. On May 22, 1998, the parties agreed to modify this order, with each parent having the children for alternating weeks. Mr. Schottenstein was to pay $13,657.46 per month for child and spousal support.
On June 3, 1998, the guardian ad litem filed his second preliminary report, indicating it was in the best interests of the children that Mr. Schottenstein be designated as the temporary residential parent and legal custodian. Further, the guardian ad litem recommended that Ms. Schottenstein's companionship rights be suspended until she completed mental health counseling and treatment.
On August 6, 1998, a magistrate's order was journalized in which Mr. Schottenstein was designated the residential parent and legal custodian pending further hearing on the matter. Ms. Schottenstein was limited to telephone contact with the children.
On August 19, 1998, Ms. Schottenstein filed a motion for the appointment of an attorney to represent the children. On August 27, 1998, the magistrate appointed an attorney to represent the children, as their wishes conflicted with what the guardian ad litem had determined was in their best interests.
On August 28, 1998, the magistrate filed an interim order, awarding Ms. Schottenstein supervised visitation with the children in accordance with the recommendations of the children's counselor.
On November 16, 1998, a magistrate's order was journalized, pursuant to the parties' agreement, designating Mr. Schottenstein the temporary residential parent and legal custodian, with each parent having companionship/visitation on alternating weeks. Pursuant to this order, Ms. Schottenstein was prohibited, absent an emergency, from seeking medical attention for or providing medication to the children without the approval of Mr. Schottenstein or the guardian ad litem if Mr. Schottenstein was not available.
On November 17, 1998, an order was journalized wherein Mr. Schottenstein's child support obligation was terminated, and he was ordered to pay $12,000 per month in spousal support.
On March 11, 1999, the guardian ad litem filed a motion for an order modifying parental rights and responsibilities, asserting that the trial court should restrict Ms. Schottenstein's involvement with her children in order to protect their best interests. On June 1, 1999, the guardian ad litem filed his fourth report in which he opined that Mr. Schottenstein should be designated the residential parent and legal custodian and that Ms. Schottenstein's companionship rights be restricted to supervised visits. In the interim, a hearing before a magistrate on the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for purposes of the final decree of divorce was conducted.
On August 18, 1999, an entry was journalized joining M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. and The Steven Schottenstein Irrevocable Trust to the action.
On September 2, 1999, the magistrate issued a decision on the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the final divorce decree. As an initial matter, the magistrate first found that shared parenting was not in the best interests of the children because of the continued animosity between the parties. The magistrate had interviewed the children individually, and each indicated her desire to reside with Ms. Schottenstein. For a variety of reasons, the magistrate found it was in the best interests of the children that Mr. Schottenstein be designated the residential parent and legal custodian. Ms. Schottenstein was granted visitation consisting of alternate weekends and one weekday evening, plus alternating holidays/vacations, and alternate weeks during the summer.
The magistrate's decision/proposed order was to be effective upon the trial judge's approval. Ms. Schottenstein and the children each filed objections to the September 2, 1999 magistrate's decision.
On February 23, 2000, Mr. Schottenstein filed a motion for contempt against Ms. Schottenstein for her alleged interference with his custody of the children. As a result, a hearing was conducted. The trial court, despite the requests of Ms. Schottenstein and all three children, refused to consider the children's testimony, deeming it "irrelevant." On March 8, 2000, the magistrate found Ms. Schottenstein in contempt and sentenced her to twenty days in jail. Ms. Schottenstein appealed the contempt finding to this court, and we granted a stay. On December 12, 2000, this court reversed the contempt finding. This court determined that the trial court should have considered the children's testimony.
On March 16, 2000, the trial court adopted the September 2, 1999 magistrate's decision with respect to allocation of parental rights and responsibilities but modified the recommended visitation schedule. Ms. Schottenstein was granted alternate weekends with no mid-week visitation.
On June 23, 2000 and July 31, 2000, Mr. Schottenstein filed motions for contempt against Ms. Schottenstein for her alleged failure to comply with the March 16, 2000 order. Mr. Schottenstein also filed a motion to suspend or terminate Ms. Schottenstein's visitation. Under the March 16, 2000 order, Mr. Schottenstein was entitled to custody of the children on June 18, 2000 (Father's Day) and July 30, 2000. On July 31, 2000, Ms. Schottenstein's visitation was suspended pursuant to the issuance of a provisional writ of habeas corpus issued in a separate proceeding.
A hearing was held on the above contempt motions. Sarah Schottenstein, then age 14, testified at the hearing.
On September 15, 2000, the trial court found Ms. Schottenstein in contempt for her failure to effect a transfer of the children to Mr. Schottenstein, in violation of the March 16, 2000 order. Ms. Schottenstein was sentenced to thirty days in jail. Ms. Schottenstein could purge this contempt by forgoing two weekend visitations (as compensatory time for Mr. Schottenstein); by paying a $1,000 fine; and by paying counsel for Mr. Schottenstein $3,500. Ms. Schottenstein filed a notice of appeal with this court on September 26, 2000, and such appeal has been assigned case No. 00AP-1088. The Schottenstein children have also appealed from the same order. On September 29, 2000, this court granted Ms. Schottenstein's motion for a stay of execution pending appeal.
On November 8, 2000 and November 9, 2000, a hearing was held on additional and multiple contempt motions filed by each party. On November 9, 2000, the trial court issued an order finding Ms. Schottenstein in indirect criminal contempt and sentenced her to forty-five days in jail. On November 10, 2000, Ms. Schottenstein filed a notice of appeal with this court, and such appeal has been assigned case No. 00AP-1284. On November 13, 2000, this court again granted Ms. Schottenstein's motion for a stay of execution.
On January 8, 2001, the trial court filed a judgment entry pertaining to the same contempt motions and the November 8, 2000 and November 9, 2000 hearing thereon. The trial court denied Ms. Schottenstein's motions for contempt against Mr. Schottenstein. The trial court found Ms. Schottenstein in indirect criminal contempt for her "blatant and persistent disregard of this court's order and for her willful and repeated failures to return the children to the defendant on October 26, 2000 and continuing from October 29, 2000 through November 9, 2000." (Jan. 8, 2001 judgment entry at 5.) The Schottenstein children have also appealed from this order, and this appeal has been assigned case No. 01AP-94.
A trial on property and spousal support matters was held in April and May 2000. The parties submitted written closing arguments and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On January 8, 2001, the trial court filed its decision and a judgment entry/decree of divorce. In this decision, the trial court denied Ms. Schottenstein's January 11, 2000 motion to remove the guardian ad litem. The trial court rejected Ms. Schottenstein's assertion that the guardian ad litem was biased and had failed to discharge his duties.
As to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, the trial court incorporated its March 16, 2000 decision with certain modifications. Again, Mr. Schottenstein was designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the children. Ms. Schottenstein was granted visitation on alternate weekends with no mid-week visitation. The children were to be with Mr. Schottenstein on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Passover. In addition, Ms. Schottenstein was prohibited from removing the children from the central Ohio area during her visitation times, including summers and holidays, without the prior written approval of Mr. Schottenstein.
With respect to property issues, the trial court found that the appreciation of the M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. stock held by The Steven Schottenstein Irrevocable Trust (hereinafter "Trust") and The Steven Schottenstein 1994 Descendants Trust ("Descendants Trust") was not caused by marital labor or contribution. The trial court further found that Ms. Schottenstein failed to prove that she had any claim against the separate property holdings of the Trust or the Descendants Trust and, therefore, dismissed the trusts from the proceedings.
Among other findings, the trial court found that the value of Mr. Schottenstein's M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. 401(k) profit sharing plan as of January 29, 1998, the de facto date of the divorce, was $206,571. The trial court concluded that Mr. Schottenstein would retain such amount, and no award from the 401(k) plan was made to Ms. Schottenstein.
The trial court valued the marital household goods and furnishings in the possession of Ms. Schottenstein at $120,000. At trial, Ms. Schottenstein had proffered testimony that the value of such personal property was $15,487.50. The trial court excluded this rebuttal evidence. The trial court ordered that the parties retain all household goods and furnishings in their respective possession at the time of the final hearing. On the balance sheet attached to the divorce decree, Ms. Schottenstein was attributed the $120,000 value of all marital household goods and furnishings.
The trial court awarded Ms. Schottenstein spousal support of $12,000 per month for four years, plus fifteen percent of the total of Mr. Schottenstein's annual performance bonus from his employer for a term of four years.
As to attorney fees, the trial court ordered Mr. Schottenstein pay a total of $200,000 toward Ms. Schottenstein's attorney fees. Such award was reduced by $25,000 (representing interim payments already made by Mr. Schottenstein) and $31,099 (representing agreed credits against Ms. Schottenstein's share of the property division and as a result of Ms. Schottenstein being awarded an unequal division of marital assets).
On January 9, 2001, Ms. Schottenstein appealed from the trial court's judgment entry/decree of divorce. The Schottenstein children have also appealed from the final divorce decree. These appeals have been assigned case Nos. 01AP-36 and 01AP-95.
On January 17, 2001, Mr. Schottenstein filed yet another motion for contempt against Ms. Schottenstein for her alleged failure to comply with the trial court's January 8, 2001 order—the final decree of divorce. The bases for such motion included allegations that Ms. Schottenstein had interfered with Mr. Schottenstein's custody and had improperly sought medical attention for the children. A hearing was held on the motion. On February 20, 2001, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding Ms. Schottenstein in indirect criminal contempt. Specifically, the trial court found that Ms. Schottenstein failed to return two of the children to Mr. Schottenstein and sought medical attention for the children. Ms. Schottenstein was fined $1,000, was ordered to pay Mr. Schottenstein's counsel $16,185, and was sentenced to ninety days in jail.
Ms. Schottenstein has filed an appeal from this contempt finding and has again obtained a stay of the trial court's February 20, 2001 order pending the appeal. This appeal has been assigned case No. 01AP-227.
This court has consolidated the appeals in case Nos. 00AP-1088, 00AP-1284, 01AP-36, 01AP-94, 01AP-95 and 01AP-227.
In case No. 00AP-1088, Ms. Schottenstein sets forth the following assignments of error in relation to the trial court's September 15, 2000 order finding her in contempt:
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY LIMITING THE TESTIMONY OF SARAH SCHOTTENSTEIN REGARDING HER INDEPENDENT AND AFFIRMATIVE WISH NOT TO VISIT WITH HER FATHER.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ISSUING A PURGE ORDER AND PUNISHMENT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND ILLEGAL.
In this same appeal, the minor children assign the following errors, which are identical to their mother's:
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY LIMITING THE TESTIMONY OF SARAH SCHOTTENSTEIN REGARDING HER INDEPENDENT AND AFFIRMATIVE WISH NOT TO VISIT WITH HER FATHER.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ISSUING A PURGE ORDER AND PUNISHMENT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND ILLEGAL.
In case No. 00AP-1284, Ms. Schottenstein has assigned the following as error in relation to the trial court's November 9, 2000 order finding her in contempt:
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT MRS. SCHOTTENSTEIN WAS GUILTY OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO FIND MR. SCHOTTENSTEIN IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND AWARDING MRS. SCHOTTENSTEIN ATTORNEY[']S FEES AND EXPENSES.
4. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IMPOSING PUNISHMENT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND ILLEGAL.
In case No. 01AP-94, the minor children assign the following as error in relation to the same contempt finding:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING APPELLANT-MOTHER IN INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR HER ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH APPELLEE-FATHER'S CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN.
A. THE TESTIMONY OF THE PARTIES' MINOR CHILDREN ESTABLISHED THAT THEY INDEPENDENTLY AND AFFIRMATIVELY REFUSED TO RETURN TO THEIR FATHER, WHICH CONSTITUTED A DEFENSE TO THE CONTEMPT BASED ON INTERFERENCE WITH CUSTODY.
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN AT THE CONTEMPT HEARING.
C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT.
In case No. 01AP-36, Ms. Schottenstein asserts the following errors in relation to the final divorce decree:
1. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by designating Appellee as the children's custodian as such a designation was contrary to law and against the manifest weight of the evidence.
A. The trial court abused its discretion and violated the children's rights when it refused to ascertain the children's wishes as to custodial placement and failed to follow the children's wishes to live with appellant as expressed to the magistrate.
B. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by disregarding the fact that appellant had been the children's exclusive and primary caregiver during their entire lifetimes and failing to award custody to appellant due to her role as the primary caretaker.
C. The trial court's decision awarding Appellee custody of the minor children was against the manifest weight of the evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion when the evidence showed that the children should be placed with appellant.
D. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to remove the guardian ad litem.
E. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by not permitting appellant to remove the children from central Ohio.
F. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by awarding Steve companionship with the children on all Jewish holidays.
2. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law in dismissing the Trust as a party from this divorce action and abused its discretion in making the property division by failing to award Appellant one-half of the marital appreciation of stock; failing to award Appellant passive investment performance associated with her one-half interest in the marital 401(K) account; and for attributing all of the household belongings to Appellant.
A. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law in dismissing the Trust at the close of Plaintiff's case when the party seeking dismissal had the burden of proof and had not met such burden.
B. The facts clearly prove that Steve actively and directly participated in the decision making process as to M/I so as to require classification of the "appreciation" as "active" and "marital" in nature.
C. In dividing a marital asset equally, it is an abuse of discretion and contrary to law to summarily exclude clear passive investment performance associated with the asset which occurred from the stipulated de facto date of divorce until the date of actual division.
D. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by attributing the value of all personal property to Appellant.
3. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding spousal support to Appellant for only four years in duration and failing to award appropriate attorneys fees.
In case No. 01AP-95, the minor children set forth several assignments of error in relation to the divorce decree, all of which challenge the trial court's custody and visitation determinations:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE, FATHER, FULL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN AS THE DECISION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
A. AN INDEPENDENT AND FAIR REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE BY THIS COURT WILL ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANT, MOTHER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN AS THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ANALYZING THE STATUTORY FACTORS OF OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 3109.04.
1. THE MINOR CHILDREN, SARAH, AGE 15, ASHLEY, AGE 13, AND ABBY, AGE 12, ARE OF AN AGE AND MATURITY LEVEL TO EXPRESS THEIR DESIRES AND HAVE ADAMANTLY EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO BE PLACED WITH APPELLANT, MOTHER.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE WHICH INDICATED APPELLANT, MOTHER, WAS THE PRIMARY CARE GIVER OF THE CHILDREN AND BY IGNORING THE APPELLEE, FATHER'S TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS MINIMALLY INVOLVED WITH THE CHILDREN PRIOR TO THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SELECTIVELY RELYING ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT TESTIMONY TO AWARD CUSTODY TO APPELLEE, FATHER, WHEN THE EXPERT EVIDENCE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY ESTABLISHES THAT APPELLEE FATHER'S PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES WERE THE SAME OR SIMILAR TO APPELLANT, MOTHER'S.
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IGNORING THE EXPERT TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO THE CHILDREN WHEN PLACING THEM WITH A PARENT THEY DO NOT WISH TO BE PLACED WITH.
2. AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE EXPERT TESTIMONY COUPLED WITH THE CHILDREN'S EXPRESSED DESIRE TO LIVE WITH APPELLANT, MOTHER, WILL ESTABLISH THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING CUSTODY TO APPELLEE, FATHER.
C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IGNORING THE STATUTORY FACTOR REQUIRING THE COURT TO CONSIDER WHICH PARENT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO FACILITATE VISITATION WITH THE OTHER PARENT AND THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN'S PARENTS REGARDING THEIR CARE.
1. THE APPELLEE, FATHER ADAMANTLY TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS HIS DESIRE TO BE AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN AND THAT IF AWARDED CUSTODY HE WANTED APPELLANT, MOTHER, TO "NEVER SEE THESE CHILDREN AGAIN."
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED DR. TARPEY TO TESTIFY OVER OBJECTION WHY APPELLEE, FATHER, WOULD MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT.
D. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IGNORED APPELLEE, FATHER'S, HISTORY OF EPISODIC LOSS OF CONTROL WITH THE CHILDREN WHEN SUCH BEHAVIOR WAS CONSISTENT WITH HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC PROFILES.
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED APPELLANT, MOTHER, TO UNDERGO PSYCHOTHERAPY BUT DID NOT REQUIRE APPELLEE FATHER TO SEEK COUNSELING REGARDING HIS EPISODIC LOSS OF CONTROL BEHAVIOR.
In case No. 01AP-227, Ms. Schottenstein submits the following assignments of error in relation to the trial court's February 20, 2001 post-decree order finding her in contempt:
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING TESTIMONY REGARDING EVENTS THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE FINAL DECREE AND IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT RELATING TO ORDERS THAT PREDATED THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECREE.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO NOTIFY APPELLANT THAT SHE WAS BEING TRIED FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND FINDING THAT APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE CASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TRIAL COURT TO INTERVIEW THE CHILDREN AND EXPLAIN THE COURT'S RULING TO THE CHILDREN.
4. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR INTERFERENCE WITH APPELLEE'S CUSTODY.
5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR SEEKING MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR THE CHILDREN.
6. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IMPOSING PUNISHMENT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND ILLEGAL.
On January 16, 2001, Ms. Schottenstein filed a motion with this court in case Nos. 00AP-1088 and 00AP-1284, seeking a determination that these appeals are moot. She argues that the order(s) from which she originally appealed have been dismissed and/or dissolved pursuant to the final decree of divorce filed January 8, 2001. In response, Mr. Schottenstein has filed a memorandum contra this motion. On March 21, 2001, this court filed a journal entry indicating that this motion would be determined with the merits of the underlying appeals.
Mr. Schottenstein, appellee, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals of the children in case Nos. 01AP-94 and 01AP-95. His bases for such motion are as follows: (1) no proper person has authorized any appeal on behalf of the children; (2) there is no statutory or common law authority permitting minor children to appeal from a judgment or decree in a divorce case when they are not parties to the judgment; (3) it is not the function of guardians ad litem and children's court-appointed attorneys to handle appellate matters; and (4) allowing children to appeal cases between their parents is against public policy. Appellant and the children's attorney advocate have filed memoranda contra appellee's motion.
Addressing the motions first, the motion filed by Mr. Schottenstein which seeks a dismissal of the appeals filed on behalf of his children is denied. The minor children of Mr. and Ms. Schottenstein were joined as parties in the action below and, as indicated infra, were independently represented by counsel. As parties, they have a right to appeal, especially such significant matters regarding where they spend their time and where they reside. We find no support for the proposition that their appeal is "unauthorized." Similarly, as parties who enjoy a right to appeal, such appeal is not against public policy.
We also deny the motion of Ms. Schottenstein seeking a declaration that two of the appeals are now moot. Entries adjudicating Ms. Schottenstein as being in contempt have been journalized. Those entries are not automatically rendered moot or void by the granting of a final divorce to the parties. Since the entries currently journalized potentially could be enforced, the appeals are not moot.
Given the foregoing, both motions are denied.
The numerous assignments of error presented on behalf of both Ms. Schottenstein and the children can generally be grouped into general categories centering on certain specific issues. One of the key issues is a determination about what role the three daughters should play in the proceedings. The trial judge made both the decision about temporary allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children, and the permanent allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in the final decree of divorce, both determinations made without personally interviewing any of the daughters. Instead, the trial judge viewed the conversation between a magistrate and the children as fulfilling the trial court's responsibility to consider the wishes and concerns of the children. Under the circumstances presented before us, we view the trial court's refusal to meet with the children as inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of R.C. 3109.04 and the rules of civil procedure.
R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) and (2) read:
(B)(1) When making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children under this section in an original proceeding or in any proceeding for modification of a prior order of the court making the allocation, the court shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of the children. In determining the child's best interest for purposes of making its allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child and for purposes of resolving any issues related to the making of that allocation, the court, in its discretion, may and, upon the request of either party, shall interview in chambers any or all of the involved children regarding their wishes and concerns with respect to the allocation.
(2) If the court interviews any child pursuant to division (B)(1) of this section, all of the following apply:
(a) The court, in its discretion, may and, upon the motion of either parent, shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.
(b) The court first shall determine the reasoning ability of the child. If the court determines that the child does not have sufficient reasoning ability to express the child's wishes and concern with respect to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child, it shall not determine the child's wishes and concerns with respect to the allocation. If the court determines that the child has sufficient reasoning ability to express the child's wishes or concerns with respect to the allocation, it then shall determine whether, because of special circumstances, it would not be in the best interest of the child to determine the child's wishes and concerns with respect to the allocation. If the court determines that, because of special circumstances, it would not be in the best interest of the child to determine the child's wishes and concerns with respect to the allocation, it shall not determine the child's wishes and concerns with respect to the allocation and shall enter its written findings of fact and opinion in the journal. If the court determines that it would be in the best interests of the child to determine the child's wishes and concerns with respect to the allocation, it shall proceed to make that determination.
(c) The interview shall be conducted in chambers, and no person other than the child, the child's attorney, the judge, any necessary court personnel, and, in the judge's discretion, the attorney of each parent shall be permitted to be present in the chambers during the interview. [Emphasis added.]
The mandatory nature of an interview process is well-established. See Badgett v. Badgett (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 448, 450 ("plain language" of statute "absolutely mandates the trial judge" to interview child[ren]); Leasure v. Leasure (Mar. 12, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72415, unreported; Riggle v. Riggle (Sept. 26, 2001), Wayne App. No. 01CA0012, unreported.
Applying the guidelines set forth in the statute, the record before us does not suggest that any of the three daughters, who are now fifteen, fourteen and twelve, respectively, are lacking in reasoning ability or communication skills. The record also does not indicate that the best interests of the children are served by having the trial court refuse to determine their wishes and concerns. We affirmatively draw the distinction between determining the wishes/concerns of the children and following the wishes/concerns of the children in making the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in the divorce decree.
R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(c) clearly contemplates that the trial judge shall meet with the children individually in chambers.
Some trial courts have delegated the responsibility to interview the minor children to magistrates as part of the trial process. See Civ.R. 75(C) and Civ.R. 53. In the case of the Schottenstein children, two different magistrates interviewed the children at different stages of the proceedings. The first interview occurred in December of 1998 in conjunction with a modification of temporary orders. The second interview occurred in early June of 1999 as part of the decision-making process with respect to allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the final decree of divorce.
The magistrate who conducted the second interview rendered a magistrate's decision on September 2, 1999. Objections to this magistrate's decision were filed both on behalf of Ms. Schottenstein and on behalf of the children who had been made parties to the divorce case. Both the children and Ms. Schottenstein requested the trial judge to conduct his own interview of the children to hear for himself their desires and to consider those desires as opposed to adopting the findings of the magistrate which named the father of the children the residential parent and limited the time the children had with their mother to alternate weekends, one weekday evening, alternate holidays and alternate weeks during summer break from school.
While the objections to this magistrate's decision were pending, the parties were having a great deal of difficulty getting the girls to follow the court order. This led to Mr. Schottenstein filing contempt charges against his wife on February 23, 2000 for one of several such filings.
Despite all this turmoil and changing circumstances involving the Schottenstein children, the trial judge refused to take additional evidence from the girls or to conduct an interview with them himself. Instead, on March 16, 2000, the trial judge adopted most of the magistrate's decision with respect to allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, but further restricted the time the girls spent with the parent who they preferred to be the residential parent. The trial judge removed the weekly mid-week time with the mother, leaving the girls with alternate weekends, alternate holidays and alternate weeks during the summer as the allowed time with their mother.
We view the trial court's handling of this issue as error. We acknowledge the practical necessity of the delegation of such matter to the magistrates. However, the trial court must place itself in a position to make a full, independent review of the magistrate's decision. Further, the trial judge must comply with Civ.R. 53 in its handling of matters delegated to magistrates.
Civ.R. 53 (E)(4) reads:
(4) Court's action on magistrate's decision
(a) When effective. The magistrate's decision shall be effective when adopted by the court. The court may adopt the magistrate's decision if no written objections are filed unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision.
(b) Disposition of objections. The court shall rule on any objections. The court may adopt, reject, or modify the magistrate's decision, hear additional evidence, recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions, or hear the matter. The court may refuse to consider additional evidence proffered upon objections unless the objecting party demonstrates that with reasonable diligence the party could not have produced that evidence for the magistrate's consideration.
(c) Permanent and interim orders. The court may adopt a magistrate's decision and enter judgment without waiting for timely objections by the parties, but the filing of timely written objections shall operate as an automatic stay of execution of that judgment until the court disposes of those objections and vacates, modifies, or adheres to the judgment previously entered. The court may make an interim order on the basis of the magistrate's decision without waiting for or ruling on timely objections by the parties where immediate relief is justified. An interim order shall not be subject to the automatic stay caused by the filing of timely objections. An interim order shall not extend more than twenty-eight days from the date of its entry unless, within that time and for good cause shown, the court extends the interim order for an additional twenty-eight days. [Emphasis sic.]
Civ.R. 53(E)(4)(b) allows a trial court to refuse consideration of additional evidence when a party could have presented the information before the magistrate, but did not. In the situation involving the Schottenstein girls, several new facts developed between the close of the hearing before the magistrate and the trial judge's adopting of the magistrate's decision. The trial court acknowledged that change had occurred by changing the allocation of time at the time the magistrate's decision was adopted.
Further, over nine months had passed since the interview of the children before the magistrate. The trial court was not in a position to evaluate for himself the impact of the intervening events on the desires and concerns of the children. Where the trial court is on notice of potentially significant changes in the circumstances involving the children, the trial judge should accept additional evidence and in many cases should conduct his or her own interview of the children as contemplated by R.C. 3109.04.
This interview by the trial judge is also consistent with the trial court's obligation to do a full, independent review of the matter referred to the magistrate. Transcripts do not convey the full impact that a personal contact with a child may communicate. A transcript does not always reflect a child's tears, frowns, smile or other aspects of demeanor. Further, a personal interview communicates to the child that the child's thoughts and feelings are important to the judge who make the final decision about so much of the child's life—where the child lives, where the child goes to school and how much time the child spends with the nonresidential parent.
In our first opportunity to address issues regarding this divorce, we clearly addressed the need for carefully considering the thoughts and concerns the three children of this marriage. In December 2000, we wrote:
The three daughters had earlier expressed their strong desires to live with their mother when the court was considering the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for purposes of the final decree of divorce. However, the final decree of divorce had not been issued or journalized at the time the trial court was presented with this contempt. The parties had been operating under the modified temporary order which named the father, Steven Schottenstein, the residential parent and were still doing so as of the time this case was argued before this appellate court almost two years after the modified temporary order was journalized. The three young women could justifiably have felt that their opinions counted for nothing, or at least had been given little weight up to that point in time.
Divorces are difficult times for children, whether young or adolescent. The children have little or no control over what is happening in their worlds. They have little or no control over what is happening between their parents. They have little or no control over basic aspects of their everyday lives, such as where they live or go to school.
Divorces also can lead to dramatic changes in the standard of living for the children, again leaving the children helpless to avoid the reduced standard of living that comes. At worst, the children blame themselves for the bad things happening to them and around them. A small child may feel that they are bad or bad things would not be happening to them. A more mature child may still harbor such a small child inside.
By the time a "child" reaches age fourteen, that "child" may be fully grown and physically mature. Parents simply cannot use the same means to control a fourteen-year-old that can be used with a preschooler. The fourteen-year-old has to at least comprehend the will of the parents if cooperation is to be expected. In the context of the Schottenstein case, the trial court should have at least interviewed the fourteen-year-old in order to ascertain her view as to what was happening in her world and why she felt she did not want to walk a short distance from her school to her father's new home to visit him or spend time with him.
The maturity of the children who were eleven and twelve at the time of the contempt proceedings is less clear. However, their need to feel that they had some control of their world could have been even greater. They had also expressed their desires to live with their mother and to be free of a schedule that moved them from house to house each week.
The trial court also should have considered taking the time to explain its ruling on the contempt to the three young women/girls. Although the guardian ad litem could normally fulfill this role, the guardian ad litem in the contempt hearing conducted himself in many ways as if he were a second attorney for the girls' father, cross-examining the mother in very hostile fashion at times.
The trial court ultimately entered a new order which threatened the mother of the girls with incarceration for twenty days and which threatened separating the girls from their mother for six weeks. A failure to explain this order could leave the young women with the impression that their attempts to express themselves had caused their mother to be jailed and them to be under the complete control and supervision of the parent they were trying to avoid. Under the circumstances, the trial court should have met with the girls, both to hear their views and then to explain later why their views did or did not have an impact on his ruling.
We no longer live in a time when children are mere chattels, with no rights and no inherent merit. We no longer live in a time when maxims such as "spare the rod and spoil the child" are generally accepted. Instead, a parent who uses a rod is at real risk of child abuse charges and/or loss of custody through juvenile court proceedings. For court orders to be effective, children the age of the Schottenstein girls have to at least accept the validity of the court's order. The trial court did not do enough to ensure acceptance and respect for its decision here.
Scottenstein v. Schottenstein (Dec. 12, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP-285, unreported.
The current version of R.C. 3109.04 is a successor statute to the former "election" statute (former R.C. 3109.04[A]), which allowed a child "*** twelve years of age or older *** to choose *** the parent with whom the child is to live," unless, inter alia, the court found the selected parent "unfit." Bawidamann v. Bawidamann (1989), 63 Ohio App.3d 691, 695. Had the former statute, amended only in the very recent past, still been in effect, all three of the Schottentstein daughters most assuredly would have elected to reside with their mother, who had provided, clearly by far, the much larger part of their care their entire lives.
The enactment of the current R.C. 3109.04 procedures for ascertaining the desires and concerns of minor children was not intended to completely eviscerate the intention of its predecessor election statute. A reading of the current statute in its entirety reveals no such intention to effect a complete reversal of the earlier law regarding election by minor children. Instead, we view the current statute as an expansion of the power of minor children to have their concerns considered before their eleventh and twelfth birthdays.
As a result, as summarized below, we sustain the assignments of error challenging the trial court's refusal to meet individually with the three daughters and to take additional evidence before deciding who should be named residential parent in the final decree of divorce.
The reticence of the trial court to personally hearing evidence from the Schottenstein daughters also impacted the various contempt proceedings. The trial court's reticence may be attributed, at least in part, to an inaccurate understanding of a legal principle. For many years, courts have recognized that minor children have the ability to thwart court orders about where the children will spend their time. The early case law developed at a time when statutes and judgments referred to custody of children and custodial parents. Now, however, the statutes refer to allocation of the children's time, residential parents and nonresidential parents. However, the ability of "children," especially of adolescents and teenaged young women or men, to thwart court orders has not changed with the mere change of statutory language.
The trial judge in this case acknowledged the case law which holds that a party would not be found in contempt where the children made an independent decision not to go on visitation with a noncustodial parent. However, the trial court nonetheless determined that such case law applies only to situations where children refuse to follow a court order to spend time with a nonresidential parent, not to cases where children refused to return to the home of the residential parent. The trial court erred in this determination.
In a statutory scheme which focuses on allocating a child's time, the same defenses are available to contempt alleged by a residential parent as by a nonresidential parent. If the child or children of the parties thwarts the court order allocating parental rights and responsibilities, it does not matter whether the order is for time with a residential parent or for time with a nonresidential parent.
Apparently because of its error of law, the trial court repeatedly refused to hear testimony from the daughters about why they were unwilling at times to return to their father's home. On the isolated occasion when the trial court allowed two of the daughters to testify, the trial court improperly minimized the scope of the testimony. Because of this error, all of the contempt proceedings before us were affected and the judgments of contempt for violations of the order with respect to the time to be spent with their father must be reversed.
Thus, as delineated below, the assignments of error relative to the contempt proceedings are sustained.
Another broad area of concern in this case is the division of marital property. We find no abuse of discretion or error of law with respect to the division of marital property. The primary issue regarding division of property dealt with a possible division of stock in M/I Homes which appreciated over $10 million in value during the term of the marriage. The trial court adequately and accurately set forth its analysis of the issue and its rationale underlying its determination why this stock was not marital property. As we concur with the trial court's rulings as to these issues, we do not feel compelled to restate the same analysis here.
A related area of concern arising in this case is the award of spousal support. Again, the trial court exercised reasonable discretion in its awards. We need not reiterate the trial court's well-reasoned analysis.
The remaining assignments of error with respect to the Schottenstein children are rendered moot by our ruling with respect to the failure of the trial court to fully consider the decision and concerns of the Schottenstein children.
Apparently several changes have occurred which will require the trial court's consideration on remand. Various filings indicate that Mr. Schottenstein remarried shortly after the final decree was journalized. The presence of a stepmother is a significant change which will require consideration. The interaction of Mr. Schottenstein with his daughters, individually and collectively, since the divorce was journalized may impact the trial court's view of what will best serve the interests of one or more of the children. Other significant occurrences unknown to this appellate court could also impact the trial court's decision. As we disdain the concept of a "vain act" in our attempt to rectify error (see, e.g., Scassa v. Scassa [July 7, 1998], Carroll App. No. 688, unreported), we are not willing to assume that the trial court will simply "go through the motions" of complying with our order of remand, while intending to reinstate its previous order. If the trial court cannot evince an open mind in addressing the merits of the conflicting positions on allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, including consideration of the summarily-dismissed, "irrelevant" opinions of the children, then the trial court certainly has the option of recusing itself from further involvement in the case.
Certain of the assignments of error have been rendered moot by our rulings above. Because all the contempt findings which are before us are now vacated, the trial court does not have the ability to treat Ms. Schottenstein as a person who has been found guilty of contempt repeatedly. The guardian ad litem has been removed and will not automatically be reinstated. The advisability of a restriction on either parent removing one or more of the children from central Ohio will need to be revisited, based upon subsequent events.
We are not in a position to state what a trial judge will rely upon in making a new order regarding the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Indeed, we are not in a position to know what judge will make subsequent rulings on this case. Thus, all assignments of error regarding weighing the expert testimony are rendered moot by our foregoing rulings.
In summarizing the disposition of these consolidated appeals, as indicated infra, the motions filed by both Ms. Schottenstein and Mr. Schottenstein are denied.
To the extent practicable, particularly in light of "overlapping" assignments of error and interrelated issues, we summarize the disposition of the appeals as follows:
Case Nos. 00AP-1088, 00AP-1284, 01AP-94, and 01AP-227, all arise from the contempt proceedings. Accordingly, to the extent indicated in this opinion, the assignments of error which challenge the trial court's contempt findings are sustained. In particular, we sustain the following: in case No. 00AP-1088, Ms. Schottenstein's second assignment of error and the children's identical second assignment of error; in case No. 00AP-1284, Ms. Schottenstein's first, second and third assignments of error; in case No. 01AP-94, the children's general assignment of error, exclusive of its "sub-issues," challenging the indirect criminal contempt finding; and, in case No. 01AP-227, the fourth and fifth assignments of error. As discussed above, the remaining assignments of error set forth in the contempt appeals are rendered moot.
The final two cases, Nos. 01AP-36 and 01AP-95, are the appeals resulting from the final divorce decree. In Ms. Schottenstein's appeal, No. 01AP-36, she sets forth three general assignments of error, with numerous lettered "subparts." We sustain the first assignment of error only to the extent it challenges the trial court's disposition of the parental rights and responsibilities related to the minor children, as discussed at length herein. The remaining second and third assignments of error related to the property distribution and spousal support are overruled.
Finally, in case No. 01AP-95, the minor children's appeal from the final decree, we similarly sustain the first assignment of error insofar as it challenges the trial court's disposition of issues related to the parental rights and responsibilities. The remaining assignments of error are overruled.
To the extent indicated herein, this case is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Motions denied;
Judgment affirmed in part and
reversed in part; cause remanded.
KENNEDY, J., concurs.
BOWMAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
BOWMAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Being unable to agree with the majority's conclusion that the trial court erred when it declined to meet independently with the three daughters, I respectfully dissent with respect to the majority's disposition of assignments of error related to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.
Civ.R. 53(C)(2) empowers a magistrate, pursuant to an order of reference by the court, to "regulate all proceedings in every hearing as if by the court." The civil rule expressly contemplates that a magistrate may subpoena and interview witnesses. Civ.R. 53(C)(2)(a) and (c). In the instant matter, the trial court referred to the magistrate the task of interviewing the children, as is frequently the case in matters involving allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.
Although it does not take issue with the trial court's reference of the interviews to the magistrate, the majority contends that the trial judge should have also interviewed the children because: (1) more than nine months had passed since the magistrate interviewed the children; and (2) there were "potentially significant changes" in the circumstances involving the children. Specifically, the majority noted that Mr. Schottenstein had remarried and his interaction with the children may have changed. I disagree with the majority that these facts mandated an independent review by the trial court. I would conclude that the trial court did not err when it declined to interview the children.
The majority's reasoning would undermine the use of a magistrate to interview children for purposes of making a recommendation as to parental rights and responsibilities. I find no reason in the majority opinion to distinguish this case from other cases with similar delay between the magistrate's interview and the trial court's decision. Furthermore, the new facts at issue in this case are not particularly unusual in the context of divorce, and I do not believe that the trial court was required to take additional evidence in order to rule on objections to the magistrate's decision. The majority opinion would appear to open the door for parties to argue that a trial court must conduct independent interviews whenever there is a delay in time between interviews by a magistrate and execution of judgment, or whenever a party perceives that one parent's relationship with a child has changed.
Similarly, I believe that the majority opinion provides inadequate guidance to trial courts regarding the circumstances under which judges would be required to conduct their own interviews. As to this matter, the majority instructs as follows: "Where the trial court is on notice of potentially significant changes in the circumstances involving the children, the trial judge should accept additional evidence and in many cases should conduct his or her own interview of the children as contemplated by R.C. 3109.04." I believe that this directive opens the door for needless confusion and uncertainty in the judicial process.
Nor do I agree with the majority that R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(c) mandates that the trial judge, rather than a magistrate, must interview the children. The purpose of R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(c), which limits those in attendance at the interview to "the child, the child's attorney, the judge, any necessary court personnel, and, in the judge's discretion, the attorney of each parent," is to protect the sensitive nature of the interview. "This section, which in effect insulates the child from any extraneous influences during the interview, suggests that the General Assembly intended to create a 'stress-free environment *** [so that] [c]hildren should display candor in setting forth their feelings' regarding custody." In re Longwell (Aug. 30, 1995), Lorain App. No. 94 CA 006006, unreported, quoting Patton v. Patton (Jan. 9, 1995), Licking App. No. 94 CA 40, unreported. R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(c) does not, however, alter the fact that R.C. 3109.04(B) contemplates a function that the trial judge may delegate to a magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 53(C)(2). Although the cases cited by the majority indicate that the interview process is mandatory upon request of either party, they do not address the trial court's authority, pursuant to Civ.R. 53, to appoint a magistrate for the purpose of conducting the interview. See Badgett v. Badgett (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 448, 450; Leasure v. Leasure (Mar. 12, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72415, unreported; Riggle v. Riggle (Sept. 26, 2001), Wayne App. No. 01CA0012, unreported. Moreover, to the extent any conflict exists between R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(c) and Civ.R. 53(C)(2), the civil rule prevails. See Section 5(B), Article IV, the Ohio Constitution.
Because I would not require the trial judge to conduct independent interviews of the Schottenstein children, I would overrule the assignments of error relating to allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and affirm that portion of the judgment.
I also dissent regarding the majority's disposition of assignments of error related to findings of contempt against Mrs. Schottenstein, as I am unable to agree with the majority's conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion. The voluminous record includes ample credible testimony to support the trial court's finding of contempt. Even if the trial court erred in limiting the scope of testimony from the children, as the majority concludes, I would deem the error harmless. The trial court was aware that all of the children had expressed a desire to live with their mother. The trial court also heard from fourteen-year-old Sarah Schottenstein, who testified that it was her unilateral decision not to return to her father's home during the time at issue. Accordingly, I would overrule the assignments of error related to contempt proceedings against Mrs. Schottenstein and affirm that portion of the judgment.
I concur with the majority opinion with respect to the disposition of the assignments of error related to property distribution and spousal support issues.
Are All The Schottenstein's Guilty of
Corruption?
by MiamiGirl200
Rootsweb - October 25, 2002
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/WVMORGAN/2002-10/1035568556
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/FEC.2ACE/860
Message Board Post:
Subj: ARE THE REPUBLICANS BUYING THE COURTS AND ELCETIONS IN OHIO?
Date: 10/21/2002 9:39:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Miamigirl2000
To: info@njdc.org
Subj: ARE ALL THE SCHOTTENSTEIN'S GUILTY OF CORRUPTION AND ALL THE OHIO COURTS?
Date: 10/21/2002 12:09:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Miamigirl2000
To: divmab@fox.com
Subj: ARE ALL THE SCHOTTENSTEIN'S GUILTY OF CORRUPTION?
Date: 10/20/2002 12:55:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Miamigirl2000
To: senator_voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov
Jill Schotenstein...formerly of Columbus, Ohio...is a prime victim of a judicial system that recognizes and does the bidding of greed...not the law.
Jill was married to Steven Schottenstein...the scion of a family that is well-connected in Ohio poltics. Steven's father..uncles and cousins have been big contributors to the Ohio Republican Party and GOP officeholders for many years.
Their largesse also found its way to Ohio State Univerisity where the school's indoor sports arena is named "The Schottenstein Center."
All of these events have led to Jill's futile effort to win custody of her children from a judicial system that has money to lose if it follows Ohio's laws.
Franklin County Domestic Relations Court Judge James Mason is the lighting rod of Jill's troubles. He has been presiding over the custody battle. Because of his one-sided rulings, the Ohio Court of Appeals have overruled Mason on eight separate occasions.
Under Ohio Law, once a child reaches the age of 13, he or she can tell the court which parent they wish to live with. The Schottenstein children, three daughters, range in age from 13 through 16. Yet, Mason has steadfastly refused to ask where they want to live.
The girls have been with the mother for many years. In fact, Mason threw Jill in jail a while back because the children were with her.
Fortunately, the appeals court ordered her released.
In hearings, Mason has permitted lies and false evidence, submitted by Steven's attorneys, to be entered into the record.
The appeals court's most recent reversal of a Mason ruling told him to seriously consider Ohio's laws and "not go through the motions" of following state statute.
Shortly after this event, Jill asked the Ohio Supreme Court to remove Mason from the case...after all, eight reversals does tend to question the wisdom of any sitting jurist.
It was here that Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, himself the recipient of tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the Schottenstein family, rule sua sponte..that Mason was not prejudiced.
Guardians have been appointed to represent the interests of the three girls. However, at least one of these guardians worked in the Schottenstein family law firm and sided with "cousin Steve's" lawyer.
Currently, the guardian appointed to the case, has informed Jill that Mason has already decided what he will do. The case doesn't come up for trial until later this month.
There are countless other horror stories that clearly show Jill has never had the chance for a fair trial and her daughters...whose legal rights dictate they tell the court where they want to reside...will never be asked by Mason where they want to live.
At stake is about $13 million in back child support.
The Schottensteins have the money, yet the courts have ruled any money is locked in a trust that can never be tapped. However, in recent months, the Schottenstein family has been raiding the trust and has been dumping stock so as to make it appear the cupboard is bare.
This is a story that cries out to be told.
February 12, 2003
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:wrBMey7Y_6sJ:ftp.sconet.state.oh.us/events/default.asp%3FEventID%3D994%26iDate%3D12%26nMonth%3D2%26nYear%3D2003%26dDepartment%3DAll%26EventCount%3D5%26lastStartDate%3D%26LastDate%3D12+%22Steven+Schottenstein%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=94&gl=us
Event Information
Title: Case No. 02-0050, Jill D. Schottenstein v. Steven Schottenstein
Start Date: 2/12/2003
Start Time: 10:00 am
End Date: 2/12/2003
End Time: 10:30 am
Location: 3rd Floor, Courtroom
Department: All Departments
Event Type: Oral Arguments
Contact Person: Clerk's Office
Additional Information:
Event Description:
Audience: Public
Special Guest:
View List of All Events for 2/12/2003
By The Watchdog
The Watchdog - April, 2004, Page 4
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:y3rriAAUNIcJ:www.noethics.net/Newsletter/newsletterapril2003.pdf+%22Steven+Schottenstein%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=65&gl=us
Each State Supreme Court has a Code of Judicial Conduct
that states: "A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
In '98 Judge James Mason of Columbus, Ohio was assigned to the Jill Schottenstein v. Steven Schottenstein divorce case. During the pendancy of this tortured case, Mason's absurd rulings against Jill were overturned seven (7) times by the Court of Appeals.
During the pendancy of this tortured case, Mason's absurd rulings against Jill were overturned seven (7) times by the Court of Appeals.
In November '00, Jill's attorney Harold Kemp filed an affidavit of bias with the Supreme Court seeking Mason's removal. Kemp and Jill testified that Mason was biased against Jill and should be removed; however, the Supreme Court refused to remove Mason.
Several days before his attempt at reelection in Nov. '00, Jill protested in front of the courthouse by carrying a large sign seeking Mason's defeat and by handing out flyers asking voters to vote for his opponent. Two days after his reelection, Mason found Jill guilty of contempt and sentenced her to 45 days in jail. This outrageous example of judicial bias was then reversed by the Court of Appeals, which spanked Mason by stating the following:
"As we disdain the concept of a 'vain act' in our attempt to rectify error, we are not willing to assume that the trial court will simply 'go through the motions' of complying with our order of remand, while intending to reinstate its previous order. If the trial court cannot evince an open mind in addressing the merits of the conflicting positions on allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, including consideration of the summarily-dismissed, opinions of the children, then the trial court certainly has the option of recusing itself from further involvement in the case."
Despite the Court's strong language Mason refused to disqualify himself. When appellate courts repeatedly reverse rulings adverse to the same party, there can be no question that the trial
Any fair-minded person would question Mason's motives in refusing to remove himself. Why would a judge fight to stay on a case when it's obvious he has a bias against Jill? The only reason is that the judge has an agenda, which is to get even with the party that exposed his biased behavior and/or to continue to advocate for the other party. Either way, justice is perverted when a judge like Mason remains on a case when the evidence of bias is as overwhelming as it is in this case.
Teen's Suit: Rich Man A Poor Dad
BY ROBERT GEARTY and TRACY CONNOR
New York Daily News - Thursday, July 29th 2004, 6:57AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/07/29/2004-07-29_teen_s_suit__rich_man_a_poor.html
A MANHATTAN teen's feud with her millionaire dad is now a federal case, replete with accusations of physical abuse and mental torture.
Sarah Schottenstein, 18, who already was suing construction magnate Steven Schottenstein for child support, slapped him with new charges in Manhattan Federal Court yesterday.
She claims he forced her into a boot camp and a mental hospital, eavesdropped on her phone calls, barged into her bathroom and slept in her bedroom.
"I'm not insinuating that I was sexually molested," the teen told the Daily News. "I just don't think that's normal."
The father, who runs an Ohio-based home-building company, and his lawyer could not reached for comment on his daughter's allegations.
Steven Schottenstein, 47, was awarded custody of Sarah and her two younger sisters after their mother divorced him and moved to Manhattan.
The suit, which names the other two girls as plaintiffs, charges that Schottenstein used his daughter as a pawn in his "war" against his ex-wife and subjected her to "abuse, domination, control, paranoia, disregard of boundaries, invasions of privacy and deprivation of liberty."
He belittled her poor health - later diagnosed as lupus - as hypochondria and "physically hurt Sarah from time to time," the suit claims.
In 2001, he took her on his corporate jet to a Connecticut boarding school against her will, and later dumped her at Cross Creek Manor, a Utah lockdown facility for bad teens, she charged.
She wound up in a Kansas psychiatric ward, sharing a room with a cocaine addict, until her mother rescued her, the suit said. "There was no reason for me to go," said the teen, who now lives with her mother. "I'm not delinquent. I'm not suicidal."
The suit does not specify the damages being sought, but the teen recently sued her father in Manhattan Family Court for child support.
In that case, she charged that he's refusing to pay for her college tuition because she left him to live with her mom.rgearty@edit.nydailynews.com
Family Court, New York County
August 22, 2006
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/Publications/Schottenstein.pdf.
Family Court, New York County
In the Matter of a Proceeding for Support Under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, Jill Schottenstein, Petitioner,
against
Steven Schottenstein, Respondent.
F-03279/04
Barry L. Goldstein, Esq., Counsel for Petitioner
Baker & Hostetler LLP, Counsel for Respondent
George L. Jurow, J.
This child support proceeding is a further example of a serious legal issue that has [*2]plagued courts on a nation-wide basis since the adoption of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Article 5-B of New York's Family Court Act)("UIFSA"): Whether, under UIFSA, a parent and child who move from a state where the existing child support obligation terminated when the child turned 18, to a state that provides for support until the child is 21, may obtain a de novo child support order in the new jurisdiction. Before the Court is an objection filed by the petitioner mother to an order entered by Support Magistrate Nicholas Palos, dismissing her support petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner commenced the support proceeding seeking an order from the Support Magistrate directing the respondent father to provide support for the parties' eighteen year old daughter. The respondent father challenged the jurisdiction of the Court (Magistrate) to enter such an order on the grounds that there is an existing child support order from the state of Ohio [FN1] and that pursuant to UIFSA and the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. §1738B ("FFCCSOA"), Ohio has continuing exclusive jurisdiction in this case and New York, accordingly, lacks jurisdiction to modify the Ohio order. Upon careful consideration of the proceedings before the Support Magistrate herein, and the applicable law, this Court finds, for the reasons discussed below, that the petitioner's objection has merit and that the Support Magistrate erred in finding that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the mother's application for child support. The history and purpose of UIFSA is clear and has been generally understood to create a "one-order" system of child support orders to replace the prior system which allowed for the same parties and child to be subject to multiple child support orders from different states. UIFSA establishes a procedure to determine which order should control and which court should have "continuing exclusive jurisdiction." FCA §§580-205(d), 207. Where a court has continuing exclusive jurisdiction, another state's court lacks jurisdiction to modify that court's order. The
Page 2
Support Magistrate agreed with the respondent's argument that the plain language of UIFSA and FFCCSOA establishes that Ohio has continuing exclusive jurisdiction in this case and that New York is thus precluded from modifying the duration of the Ohio order. See Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, NYLJ, 6-2-05, p.18, col.3. While this Court agrees with the Support Magistrate's views regarding the purpose and spirit of UIFSA and FFCCSOA, and finds that it is reasonable to interpret these statutes as intending that the original order should control the duration of the child support order in all
situations, New York case law has consistently allowed for a different statutory interpretation
and application. In Ferraro v. Nash, 293 AD2d 538, 739 N.Y.S.2d 838(2d Dept. 2002), the
Appellate Division determined that New York had jurisdiction to issue a new child support order
on behalf of a child who was less than 21 years of age after the original Florida child support
[*3]order had expired. The Appellate Division's decision recited scant facts but cited two cases
both as well involving parties seeking child support orders in New York for children between the
ages of 18 and 21 after the expiration of the original State's support orders. Those courts clearly
held that a New York child support order made after the expiration of another State's order does
not serve to modify the duration of that State's order, but rather, is a de novo order. Goodison v.
Goodison, 184 Misc 2d 573, 709 N.Y.S.2d 376 (Fam. Ct. Broome County, 2000); Hauger v.
Hauger, 256 AD2d 1076, 683 N.Y.S. 2d 771 (4th Dept. 1998).
All these cases, arguably, do not further the "one-order" policy of UIFSA but, to the extent
that they conflict with UIFSA's intent, they may do so for two reasons: (1) to serve the important
policy of New York State that children are entitled to be supported by both parents until the age
of twenty-one, See Family Court Act §413[1][a]; and (2) the language of UIFSA, as adopted by
New York State, does not specifically act as a bar to the entry of successive child support orders.
See Family Court Act §580-611.
This conflict between the New York case law and the statutory intent of UIFSA—has, in fact, been recognized by the drafters of UIFSA. Comments regarding a proposed amendment to section 611 of UIFSA (which has not been adopted in New York) state:
From its original promulgation UIFSA determined that the duration of child-support obligation [sic] should be fixed by the controlling order....If the language was insufficiently specific before the 2001 [sic], the amendments should make this decision absolutely clear....Some courts have sought to subvert this policy by holding that completion of the obligation to support a child through age 18 established by the now-completed controlling order does not preclude the imposition of a new obligation thereafter to support the child through age 21.... [Proposed] Subsection (d) is designed to eliminate these attempts to create multiple, albeit successive, support obligations.
[FN2]
Whether it is "subversion" or a well-intentioned desire to have children in New York supported until age 21, it appears [*4]that, currently, the law in New York would require a finding that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case. Until other appellate courts, or the Court of Appeals, or the legislature of this State revisits this issue, and compels a different result, this Court is bound by an applicable appellate interpretation of the statute as determined in Nash. See Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2nd Dept.1984).
It is true, as noted by the Support Magistrate, that Nash did not contain much factual background, for example, whether the subject child's length of residence in New York is a critical variable in the court's analysis. [FN3] Although Goodison suggests that the child's contacts
Page 3
with New York may be of significance, that case emphasized as paramount the policy of New York to support children to age 21. The Support Magistrate's attempt to dismiss Nash (which was not a fact-based decision)as wrongly decided or at least analytically flawed ("...blindly applying [precedents]...no explanation for why the statute itself was ignored..."), and Goodison as well, is, ultimately, unpersuasive. Whether are not these cases are incorrect, or imperfect, is not the issue. Nash, which also refers back to Goodison, is controlling precedent. And, again, the clarifying amendments, whose purpose the Support Magistrate obviously strongly supports, have not been enacted in New York. The apparent disconnect between the intent of UIFSA and the existing New York case law requires further debate. The legislature is, respectfully, encouraged to review this issue. But this Court, at the trial level, can not act unilaterally to resolve the issue. Cf. Sheetz v.Sheetz, 840 AD2d 1000, PA Super. 512 (Superior Ct. Of Penn. 2003).
To be clear, this court's decision is strictly limited to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Its does not address, for example, any issues of personal jurisdiction nor the ultimate merits, if any, of any potential support order. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the Support Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition herein for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and grants the petitioner's objection. The matter is hereby remanded to the Support Magistrate for further proceedings. So ordered. Notify parties.
E N T E R : [*5]
George L. Jurow
Judge of the Family Court [*6]
Footnotes
Footnote 1:The Court accepts, for the purposes of this decision, that there is an Ohio child support order. This Order was entered on January 29, 2004 by the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations. Although the order only required the respondent to provide medical insurance for the minor children, this qualifies as a "child support order" under the FFCCSOA, 28 U.S.C. §1738B (b) and UIFSA, FCA §580-101 (21). Footnote 2:Drafting Committee for Amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, December 2001.
Footnote 3:The child at issue here, while currently a New York resident, was born and raised in Ohio and the subject of lengthy litigation in the Ohio courts.
Yahoo Message Board - September 7, 2007 (04:25 pm)
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_M/threadview?m=tm&bn=11635&tid=1210&mid=1210&tof=18&rt=2&frt=2
ISN'T 601RS TIED TO THE 650,000 BANK LOAN WITH YOUR 19 BANKS?
Footnote 1:The Court accepts, for the purposes of this decision, that there is an Ohio child support order. This Order was entered on January 29, 2004 by the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations. Although the order only required the respondent to provide medical insurance for the minor children, this qualifies as a "child support order" under the FFCCSOA, 28 U.S.C. 1738B (b) and UIFSA, FCA 580-101 (21)."
CASE # 98DR-01-347
STEVEN SCHOTTENSTEIN
CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET FILED MARCH 20 1998 AT 3:40 P.M. (35403H12)
THIS WORKSHEET WAS NEVER SIGNED BY BARRY WOLINETZ OR STEVEN SCHOTTENSTEIN YET SUBMITTED THROUGH THE FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY WITHOUT PROSECUTION.
DAVID SMITH & ATTORNEY GENERAL PETRO BOTH INSIST THERE IS NO ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT IN EXISTANCE IN OHIO.
SEE PAGE 12 # 19. Marginal out of pocket costs, necessary to provide for health insurance for the children who are the subject of this order. 00000000000000000000000000000
SEE PATE 12 # 20 TOTAL CHILD CARE AND MEDICAL EXSPENSES (ADD 18 & 19 COLUMN 1 AND 2) 00000000000000000000000000000000000
IS THIS A CRIME?
FEDERAL FORM # 3113.215 O.R.C.
SEE PATE 12 # 20 TOTAL CHILD CARE AND MEDICAL EXSPENSES (ADD 18 & 19 COLUMN 1 AND 2) 00000000000000000000000000000000000
IS THIS A CRIME?
FEDERAL FORM # 3113.215 O.R.C.
Is Child Support An Option, Does It Speak To Who We Are As A
People?
Yahoo Message Boards - September 24, 2007 (03:03 am)
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/systemerror?e=IHPfbsCkApzsi5O8ywL3pouBwhah4OQRLS3dLklVdqo-
Sarah's sworn testimony on November 16, 2005, included the following:
"I left Ohio because I couldn't bear another day living there. I was afraid to stay. Before I left my father said he was going to hurt me. He said actually- I know we're here today for child support but he told me he'll never pay child support and he told me he never wanted me to see my mother again and he wanted her locked up in jail." (A. 243 lines 17-23)
"I was afraid for my health. Every single doctor there he would stop treatment and I knew I was still having symptoms and I expected if I relocated I would be healthier." (A. 243 lines 23, 24, 25), (A. 244 lines 1, 2)
"In 2001 my father . . . locked me up. He sent me to a delinquent camp and psych ward where in the delinquency camp they ship people off to Mexico and the people are in handcuffs and if I was sent there I'm sure no one would have ever found me." (A. 253 lines 16-24)
"Before that people in my high school were filling out letters of recommendation. I won a citizenship award in seventh grade; I have no place to be in a delinquency camp or locked up." (A. 254 lines 2-6)
"Threats to hurt me, threats to lock up my mom, threats to hurt my mom. I mean even something in a completely different sense, saying that I wouldn't graduate, threats to my academic abilities I mean even that's something really important to me." (A. 254 lines 21-25)
"When I was fifteen and before my father sent me away he started shaking and grabbing my shoulders and at the point I ran to the front door and he grabbed and started twisting my arm and I didn't understand what was going on." "I just remember saying to myself is he gonna break my arm, what is he doing this for ..." (A. 256 lines 4-10)
"Immediately when I got here (New York), I was enrolled in a high school and I graduated. I graduated with honors and since then I have been college and excelling academically as well."(A. 256- 257)
"I was having symptoms. I was having gastrointestinal problems, joint pain and I wasn't- I was having trouble walking far distances." "At one point, I mean, my health was still interfering with my academics." (A. 251 lines 21-25)
"Actually, yes. Now, I mean, Now living in New York City, I'm walking far distances. Sometimes actually I walk faster than my own mom." "I recently just made the Dean's list in college and I'm heavily participating in school." (A. 252 lines 4-8)
"He was always screaming at me and yelling. I didn't feel safe with him and he never- I felt like he wasn't treating me like a daughter, but I felt I wasn't being treated like a person. He had guards at the door..." (253 lines 2-6)
"You mentioned that Dr. Silberg had evaluated your entire family. Was there any other doctors that ever did that?"
"I don't believe so." (A. 261 lines 11-14)
Jill Schottenstein V Steven Schottenstein in the First Appellate Court
Child support filed March of 2004 and still pending....
George Bundy Smith advocating AGAINST THE CHARTER OF JUDGE KAYE REPRESENTING STEVEN SCHOTTENSTEIN
Click here: Court Improvement Project - Home Page
"The Child Welfare Court Improvement Project ('CIP') is a federally-funded initiative that supports the Family Court's mandate to promote the safety, permanence and well-being of abused and neglected children.
WHAT PART DID JAY & HIS FAMILY HAVE IN THIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION SITUATION? IS THIS A FELONY?
WHY WAS ABIGAIL SILENT IN HER POSITION AS CHAIR FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
M/I Homes, Inc (MHO) - Salary, Compensation, Stock Options
Company Pay.com
http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/steven_schottenstein_2012746_MHO.asp
Executive Details
| Postion | Vice Chairman of the Board, Chief Operating Officer, Assistant Secretary |
| Age | 47 |
| Start year | 1990 |
| Salary & Bonuses(not including Stock Options) | $2,012,746 |
| Exercised Stock Options Count | 25,000 |
| Exercised Stock Options Value | $615,805 |
| Vested Stock Options Count | 29,000 |
| Vested Stock Options Value | $517,225 |
| Nonvested Stock Options Count | 75,000 |
| Nonvested Stock Options Value | $1,092,690 |
| Company | M/I Homes, Inc |
| Stock Symbol | MHO |
* $ Total Salary includes salary and bonus but does not include stock options
Stockholders of JP - Waht Would You Do With This Partner?
By Miamigirl2000
AOL Message Boards - October 16, 2007
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=70571&articleId=8310&func=5&channel=Money+%26+Finance
Chadbourne & Parks LLP (New Partner) (George Bundy Smith)
This supports Chadbournes original statements in the memorandum in support of defendants M/I Homes, Incs motion to dismiss.(exhibit I ) There can be no doubt as to the intent: Steve Schottenstein; (S----). did not consent in fact she filed a Federal constitutional case(exhibit J) against her father and his company M/I Homes because her uncle Robert Schottenstein is the trustee of the aircraft 601RS which made him a party to the felony.
According to Chadbournes own case law their now client Steven Schottenstein is guilty of kidnapping and his brother Robert as trustee of the aircraft 601RS that belongs to the bank loans of M/I Homes is now a party to this crime.
Defendants attorney George Bundy Smith(exhibit H) signed a reply brief on August 6, 2007 stating he swore under penalty of perjury all statements were true. "He knew there was no support order. He also knew as a partner at Chadbourne & Parks LLP, that his associates Jennifer P. Wilson and Thomas E. Riley, had entered a Memorandum in support of defendant M/I Homes Incs motion to dismiss on August 23, 2004(exhibit I)"
In this memorandum is stated Mr. Schottensteins purported confinement: of Plaintiff was solely to cause both mother and daughter anxiety over plaintiffs disappearance in furtherance of a litigation tactic to punish plaintiff mother for leaving Mr. Schottenstein and challenging him in court. Plaintiffs so-called confinement was not related to any conduct by or on behalf of M/I Homes, but to conduct her father allegedly undertook soley for personal reasons. Under both New York and Ohio law a plaintiff asserting a common-law claim for false imprisonment must establish that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff that the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement and did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y. 2d 7B, 85, 735 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2001); Fryverson v Ohio Dept. of Rehab. And Corr. 120 Ohio Mics. 2d 50, 52 778 N.E. 2d 153, 155 (Ohio Ct. Cl.2002) The offense of false imprisonment occurs when a defendant acts to confine one intentionally without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable time, however short affd No. 02AP-1216. 2003 WL 21234932 (Ohio App. 2003)
What exactly is Chadbourne & Parks LLP and "Partner" George Bundy Smith trying to do? Circumvent the entire legal system to prove the Indepence of the Legal system is on hold until "Judges get a raise," or is this the current practice? This totally dismisses the premise of the Kaye Commision Report and Guidelines, the time and efforts of the Public, & Legal practioners, the Federal and State funding all at the expense of the children it was designed to protect and support.
(NOTICE OF MOTION FOR REARGUMENT & TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS SCHOTTENSTEIN V SCHOTTENSTEIN)
Columbus Jewish leader dead at 75
Akron Jewish News - March, 2004
http://www.akronjewishnews.com/archives_main.cfm?pub=10
Irving Schottenstein, a former president of the Jewish federation of Columbus, Ohio, died at 75. Schottenstein, who died Feb. 11, also served as president of the Columbus Jewish Foundation from 1984 to 1991, the longest-serving president in the foundation's history. He also was a co-founder of M/I Homes, one of largest home builders in the United States.
M/I Sschottenstein Homes, Inc. Names New president and
Announces Senior Management Changes.
PR Newswire - May 8, 1996
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18268905.html
COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 8 /PRNewswire/ -- M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. (NYSE: MHO) announces that certain key executive roles have changed effective immediately.
M/I Homes announced today that Robert H. Schottenstein has been named President and Steven Schottenstein has been named Senior Executive Vice President. Irving E. Schottenstein will continue to serve as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the Company has established an Office of the Chairman consisting of Irving E. Schottenstein, Robert H. Schottenstein and Steven Schottenstein. The Office of the Chairman will formulate and review key policy of the Company. The realignment of senior ..
http://tcjf.org/page.html?ArticleID=159998
More than 80 Years of Federation Leadership
The Federation, founded in 1926 has as its cornerstone
the centuries old belief that social justice (Tzedakah) is a community
responsibility. In practice, this means that each Jewish person has the duty
to help other Jews - one responsible for the other - one family, one community,
one people.
Today there are more than 500 volunteers and 4,000 contributors involved in The Federation, dedicated to strengthening our own community and establishing a secure and vital future for Jewish life worldwide. We are mindful of our past and thank the leadership listed, whose tireless efforts created a strong foundation rooted in our core Jewish values.
Federation Past Presidents
Edwin Schanfarber 1926-1944
