COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CASE NO. 92-G-1705
APPEAL
ELEVENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS AND BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
MAURICE E. BRAHIER, PRO Se
NO PERMANENT ADDRESS
MAY BE CONTACTED THROUGH
MAURICE E. BRAHIER
C/O xxxxxxxxx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS---------------------------------------A
COVER LETTER-------------------------------------------1-2
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR------------------------------------4-5
STATEMENT OF CASE--------------------------------------5-7
ISSUES FIRST PRE-TRIAL---------------------------------6-7
ISSUES SEC. PRE-TRIAL------------------------------------7
ADDRESSABLE CODE, OTHER----------------------------------8
SUB HEADINGS d,e,f OF JUDGEMENT ENTRY-------------------8-10
SUMMARY---------------------------------------------------11
TEXT ENTRY ARGUEMENTS-----------------------------------12-24
HEADING 9. DIFFERRING RULES-----------------------------24-26
SUMMATION-----------------------------------------------27-29
CONCLUSION----------------------------------------------29-30
CERTIFICATION PAGE-----------------------------------------31
ATTACHMENTS, MOTION, AFFIDAVITS------------SEPARATE ENCLOSURE
PRECEDENT
BECHTOL V BECHTOL-----------------------13,17,18,19,21,22,24,
BOLINGER V BOLINGER--------------------------------------8,9,
BUCKLES V BUCKLES---------------------------------------8,10,
CARR V CARR----------------------------------------------8,9,
DAY V DAY--------------------------------------------------10
HOLCOMB V HOLCOMB------------------------------------------9,
HOYT V HOYT------------------------------------------------9,
JOSSELSON V JOSSELSON--------------------------------------9,
KUNKLE V KUNKLE-----------------------------------8,10,17,18,
LEMON V LEMON----------------------------------------------10
PAPARODIS V PAPARODIS-----------------------------------13,20
SCHROEDER V SCHROEDER---------------------------------------9
WELLY V WELLY----------------------------------------------10
16 OHIO NORTH L REV 173(1989)------------------------------10
CODES, LAWS, RULES,OTHER
AM SUB H.B. 514-------------------------------------------30
AM SUB S.B. 3---------------------------------------------25
CANNON LAW-----------------------------------------------8,22
CIV R 3,9,27,28,31,32,34,35,45,59,60,61------------THROUGHOUT
OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE-----------------------------THROUGHOUT
2151.03-------------------------------12,14,20,21,24,25,26,30
2151.031------------------------------12,14,20,21,24,25,26,30
2701.17-----------------------------------------------------4
3103.01-------------------------------------------13,19,20,21
3105.011----------------------------------------------------8
3105.171-------------------------------------------------8,29
3105.18-----------------------8,10,11,14,15,17,18,20,21,26,29
3105.21-------------------------------------------------21,29
3109.01----------------------------------------------------25
3109.03----------------------------------------18,19,20,21,30
3109.04----------------------12,13,16,17,18,20,21,22,24,26,30
3109.05----------------------12,13,16,17,18,20,22,24,25,25,30
3109.051---------------------------------------------------24
3109.25-------------------------12,14,16,17,18,20,22,24,25,26
3109.26----------------------------13,14,18,19,20,22,24,25,26
3109.37-------------------------------------------------18,30
COVER LETTER
The appellant again finds himself in a position of Pro Se,
not by his choice, but by result of the action from which
this appeal stems.
Since the lessor court failed to take into account certain
considerations in its judgement entry concerning my possible
life after divorce, my prior lawyer quitting the case for a
supposed lack of time, and the rapid response to my appeal, I
beg this courts indulgence for my attempt at representation.
I have tried to obtain legal representation, but due to my
lack of finances, Legal Aid not wishing to handle this
case, and the lawyers wish for retainers (and the lack
thereof) and time to familiarize themselves with the case, I
am forced to present this to you.
I have no idea of what a proper entry to this court might
be, and do not wish to have this court regard me as something
I am not. I am definitely not a lawyer nor para-legal and do
not wish to appear to this court to be presenting myself as
one. Please regard this as a common man's presentation, not
as a direct interpretation of law. I would not so insult the
court by attempting to present this, but I must to comply.
Necessity dictates my actions once again. This same
forced presentation during the previous action has obviously
earned me my bizarre behavior from the lower court, and
earned me a classification that I did not seek.
I find it appalling that the court has proceeded as if the
parties previous 8+ years of marriage in the State of
Kentucky, and thier 10 years prior to that, does not exist.
The following will contain statements produced from a best
memory basis, as I am no longer in the area of the court
records, the transcript not being produced for viewing for
lack of funds, and working at a temporary-seasonal job in the
Toledo area. I will be unable to supply the page referances
to go with the statements, having complied with the vacate
order, contrary to presentation by my former wife in her
motion to show cause. Since the case was presented by the
attorney's based on custody alone, the transcript (record) is
reviewable in whole.
This is presented as my interpretation of what a lawyer's
response might be, were I to have one. I have based this on
the judgement entry itself, again not knowing if this is even
the correct, legal response.
Please accept this as a viable inquiry or presentation to
the court on the merit of the contents, not on it's legal
form or law statements validity only.
If the brief is to long for presentation, please waive the
requirement ( I tried to find out the proper length but could
find no referance, and none was obtainable per no legal
advise offered by attorneys ).
_____________________________
MAURICE E. BRAHIER, PRO SE
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Gail S. Brahier :CASE NO. 92-G-1705
Plaintiff-Appellee
:ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS,
:BRIEF AND ADDENDUM
- vs - :TO REASONS FOR APPEAL,
:NEWLY DISCOVERED
Maurice E. Brahier :EVIDENTIAL
Defendant-Appellant :ATTACHMENTS
:MOTION FOR;
:ACCEPTANCE & INCLUSION
:OF EVIDENCE, REVIEW
:SPOUSAL SUPPORT,
:CUSTODY
\{SPECIAL NOTES FOR APPEAL\} addendum to reasons for appeal
2701.17, OTHER OHIO, FEDERAL CIVIL LAW AND/OR RULES CONTAINED
IN ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR AND BRIEF
\{ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
\} THE COURT DID NOT INCLUDE THE NECESSARY LEGAL STATEMENTS,
NOR DID THE COURT PROPERLY CONSIDER THE FACTORS PURSUANT TO
THE CASE, PRODUCING AN IMPROPER AND / OR ILLEGAL AND / OR
PREJUDICIAL ENTRY.
A. The court did not attach the seperation of physical
property agreement.
B. The court did not include the medical insurance for
the children statement.
C. The court did not include provision statement for cash,
savings, and checking accounts.
D. The court did not include its statement of uninsured
medical expenses.
E. The court did not include its statement releasing the
parties from restraint and other imposed orders.
F. The court did not take proper consideration of the
evidence and/or testimony and/or affidavits.
G. The court failed to provide proper custody of the
children.
H. The court failed to provide spousal support for the
defendant.
I. The court failed to SEPARATE the marital assets and
disburse the marital debts pursuant to the facts of the
case and code and / or law and / or statute and / or
rules.
J. The court failed to admit evidence to the case.
K. The court dismissed motions to: subpoena evidence;
open marital assets to obtain proper justice; order
investigations; protect the interests of the children;
SEPARATE the household prior to divorce for the sake
of, and welfare of, the children and the defendant;
present the case to the proper venue and / or forum.
L. The court failed to insure the defendant a proper legal
defence.
\{STATEMENT OF THE CASE
\}91 DC 000792, AN ACTION OF DIVORCE AND CUSTODY, FILED GROSS
NEGLECT AND CUSTODY, TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE VEIT
PRESIDING, COUNTY OF GEAUGA, STATE OF OHIO.
The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 27,
1991, a signed Summons date of Oct. 1, notice of hearing Nov.
11 (pre-trial emplo. and finan. status) filed Oct. 10 (later
changed to Nov. 18), temporary restraining order filed
Sept.27, by the plaintiff Gail S. Brahier.
The defendant was without legal representation because of
the financial position of the family. The defendant presented
numerous motions and affidavits in reply to the action, after
attempting to obtain representation.
The first pre-trial conferance on Nov. 18, was held in front
of referee Elaine Tassi, esquire, the plaintiff represented
by Dennis J. Ibold, defendant without representation.
Motions were filed by both parties during span.
Second pre-trial hearing on January 14, was held in front of
Elaine Tassey. Plaintiff - Mr. Ibold, defendant - Mr. Richard
Ziegler, retained by the defendant on January 9. 1992, after
finding sufficient loan amount available to do so.
The case was heard in front of Judge Hans R. Veit on April
14, 1992 producing a Judgement Entry of Divorce on
Incompatability, and Custody to the plaintiff.
\{Issues addressed the first pre-trial hearing were:
\}financial status of the family; why the defendant left his
employ; plaintiff's lawyer presented the defendant not looking
for work-defendant presented 100+ names and addresses he had
looked for work; the employability of the defendant and why
there was difficulty; why the defendant presented the motions
pro se; the facts concerning the affidavits; the newness of
the family to the state; length of time the defendant had
been in the state; the willingness of the defendant to file
bankruptcy with the plaintiff and stop divorce proceedings;
the mental bearing of the defendant; that the plaintiff had
opportunities to accept positions elsewhere for potentially
more money with help from her employer; cost of living
differentials between Ohio and Kentucky; relative worth of
the family before the move, and the potential had they not
moved; the school systems in the two states; that the
plaintiff and defendant had discussed a career move, set a
salary amount for the move to a southern state; that the
plaintiff was in-line for a park managers position before her
move to Ohio; the availability of witnesses and evidence in
Ohio and Kentucky; many other aspects of the case.
\{At the second pre-trial
\} issues presented to the defendants lawyer, whom stated he
presented them to the court: he had contacted Geauga County
Welfare for A.D.C., food stamps, assistance; he had contacted
financial officer at Kent State University about schooling
and loans and grants; he had contacted J.T.P.A. and tested
for placement. All were available upon seperation of
household.
\{THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS AN IMMEDIATE REVIEW, AND REVERSAL\}
\{CONCERNING JUDGEMENT ENTRY AND PRESENTS THIS BRIEF\}, \{AND THE
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT AND / OR RECORD FOR CAUSE.\}
ADDRESSABLE CODE, RULES, OTHER - Civ. R. 3, 27, 28, 31, 32,
34, 35, 45, 60, Cannon Law, Ohio Rules of Evidence, and other
Federal and State Rules and/or code and/or law.
\{1. PURSUANT TO SUB HEADINGS (d),(e),(f) OF THE JUDGEMENT
ENTRY
\}AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER: 3105.011, 3105.171,
3105.18, OTHERS CONCERNING DIVORCE AND CUSTODY
PRECEDENT CONCERNING JUDGEMENT ENTRY-
SUB (d)-
49 OS(3d) 120,551 NE(2d) 157 (1990),BOLINGER V BOLINGER
The subject matter jurisdiction of a trial court to award
permanent alimony and to formulate an equitable division of
the marital assets commences when either party files a
complaint for divorce and a division of marital property.
46 APP(3d) 102,546 NE(2d) 950(FRANKLIN 1988),BUCKLES V
BUCKLES
Parity as a goal of alimony expressed in RC 3105.18 is not a
mathematical equality but an equitable term.
A trial court's failure to individually determine each piece
of property considered in an alimony determination
constitutes error.
46 APP(3d) 132,546 NE(2d) 226(WAYNE 1988),CARR V CARR
A court may order an award of sustenance alimony where no
specific demand for alimony has been made if such an award is
warranted.
51 OS(3d) 64,554 NE(2d) 83(1990),KUNKLE V KUNKLE
Except in cases involving a marriage of long duration,
parties of advanced age, OR a homemaker-spouse who has had
little opportunity to develop meaningful employment outside
the home, where a payee spouse has the resourses,and
potential to be self-supporting, an award of sustenance
alimony should provide for the termination of the award,
within a reasonable time and upon a date certain , in order
to place a definitive limit upon the parties rights and
responsibilities.
52 APP(3d) 117,557 NE(2d) 145(ÿPUTNAM 1988)ÿSCHROEDER V
ÿSCHROEDER
A divorce decree awarding specific marital property to one
spouse and "the balance of the property" to the other spouse
may be modified to fairly and completely dispose of newly
disclosed property after it is found that the parties did not
disclose the full extent of marital property.
27 J ÿFAM 351 (1989), MARITAL PARTNERSHIP AND THE CASE FOR
PERMANENT ALIMONY(SPOUSAL SUPPORT), SALLY F. ÿGOLDFARB
SUB (e),(f)-
46 APP(3d) 132,546 NE(2d) 226(WAYNE 1988)CARR V CARR
A court may order an award of sustenance alimony where no
specific demand for alimony has been made if such an award is
warranted.
NO.54542(8ÿth DIST. CT. APP. ÿCUYAHOGA,10-27-88) ÿJOSSELSON V
ÿJOSSELSON,
A law degree is not marital property, although it may be
taken into account in the determination of an equitable
alimony award under RC 3105.18;
49 OS(3d)120,551 NE(2d) 157(1990),BOLINGER V BOLINGER,
listed SUB (d)
53 OS(3d)177,599 NE(2d) 1292(1990), HOYT V HOYT,
When considering a fair and equitable distribution of pension
or retirement benefits in a divorce,the trial court must
apply its ÿdicretion based on (1)the ÿcicumstances of the case;
(2)the status of the parties;(3)the nature,terms and
conditions of the pension or retirement plan; and (4)the
reasonableness of the result.
44 OS(3d)128,541 NE(2d)597(1989) ÿHOLCOMB V ÿHOLCOMB,
A vested pension plan accumulated during a marriage is a
marital asset and must be considered in conjunction with other
factors listed under RC 3105.18 and other ÿrelevent factors in
dividing marital assets and liabilities to ensure the result
reached is equitable.
40 APP(3d)155,532 NE(2d)201(FRANKLIN 1988) DAY V DAY,
A trial court's failure to consider whether or not a
spouse's pension plan may properly be subject to "qualified
domestic relations order" pursuant to 29 USC 1056 constitutes
an abuse of discretion.
46 APP(3d)102,546 NE(2d)950(FRANKLIN 1988) BUCKLES V
ÿBUCKELS,
Listed SUB (d)
16 OHIO NORTH L REV 173 (1989),ÿRehabilative alimony in Ohio,
Comment
52 APP(3d)117,557 NE(2d)145(ÿPUTNAM 1988),ÿSchroeder v
ÿSchroeder Listed SUB (d)
55 APP(3d) 111(WILLIAMS 1988),ÿWELLY V ÿWELLY
In a divorce action,the trial court may either divide the
interest in a retirement plan or award it entirely to one
party depending on what would be equitable in the
circumstances.
51 OS(3d) 64,554 NE(2d) 83(1990),KUNKLE V KUNKLE
listed SUB (d)
42 APP(3d) 142,537 NE(2d) 246(HOCKING 1988),LEMON V LEMON
An unvested pension may be a marital asset under RC 3105.18
and in determining whether the unvested pension is a marital
asset the court should ÿconcider the time left before the
pension becomes vested, the ÿlenth of the marriage between the
parties, and the contribution of the parties both primarily
and secondarily to the pension plan.
The matter of an I.R.A. and retirement assets were never
addressed to the defendant for his approval. All monetary
assets were put under the name of the plaintiff. The
defendant did remind the court of the I.R.A. during his
testimony and advised it that he had not been consulted.
3105.18(C)(1)(d)
The court has ignored its responsability to insure that
neither party of an action of divorce leaves the court
in inequality, regardless of what the parties or thier
lawyers might present to the court as equitable. Parity is
the goal the court labors under.
THE COURT HAS LEFT THE DEFENDANT:
CAREERLESS,(at the time) JOBLESS, HOMELESS, PENNYLESS,
CHILDLESS, WITH HALF THE DEBTS, HIS LEGAL FEES, THE COURT
COSTS, AND BEING ORDERED TO VACATE THE PREMISES, IN A STATE
WHICH IS NOT HIS CHOICE, NOR HIS CHILDRENS, TO LIVE IN.
THE COURT HAS IGNORED TESTIMONY AND/OR AFFIDAVITS THAT THE
DEFENDANT:
a. HELPED SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF WHILE IN SCHOOL,
3105.18(C)(1)(j)
b. HELPED PAY OFF THE PLAINTIFF'S SCHOOL LOAN,
3105.18(C)(1)(j)
c. HELPED PAY THE LOANS THE PLAINTIFF OBTAINED FOR HER CAREER
ADVANCEMENT(CONVENTIONS,WORKSHOPS,ADDITIONAL FEES FOR THE
PLAINTIFF'S MASTERS, ETC.) 3105.18(C)(1)(j)
d. LOST HIS BUSINESS AND CAREERS BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF'S
CAREER AND NUMEROUS MOVES BY THE PLAINTIFF, AND THE HOUSEHOLD
-CHILD CARE DUTIES. 3105.18(C)(1),(j),(k),(m)
e. WAS THE PRIMARY CARE GIVER 3105.18(C)(1),(f),(m)
THE COURT HAS IGNORED CIVIL LAW AND STATUE, U.S. RULES, AND
PRECEDENT, REQUIRING THAT IT INSURE JUST AND EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF ALL ASSETS, DEBTS, PROPERTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES PURSUANT TO THE FACTS CONCERNING THE
MARRIAGE BETWEEN PARTIES.
\{PURSUANT TO TEXT ENTRY, INFERRED REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
\}
1. STATEMENT "BOTH PARENTS INTERACT WITH AND RELATE WELL TO
THE CHILDREN."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER: 3109.04, 3109.05, 2151.03,
3103.01, 3109.25
The court ignores the testimony that the plaintiff has
missed key problems regarding the childrens emotional state,
concerning both children. 3109.05(A)(d)
Ignoring the fact of possible safety concerns regarding the
plaintiff and children. 2151.03, 3109.04(C),
3109.04(F)(1)(h), 3109.25(C)(3)
Ignoring the limited concern that the plaintiff has shown
for time spent with children from testimony supplied by the
defendant. 3109.04, 3109.25(C)(3)
Ignoring testimony that her career will take even more time
away from the children, due to her new position, which was
given to her at the hearing to sway the court. 3109.04
2. STATEMENT "THE CHILDREN ARE WELL ADJUSTED TO THIER HOME,
SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER: 3109.04, 3109.05, 2151.03
FEDERAL RULES, CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, OTHER CIVIL LAW
IGNORING TESTIMONY:
That the court restrained the defendant and children to this
state dismissing motions and ignoring affidavits for release.
That the school here has missed important steps in Amber's
education. 3109.04(F)(1), 3109.05(A)(f)
That the school has missed Amber's advanced skills in math,
writing, and reading. 3109.05(A)(f),
Regarding the plaintiff, in that she held Amber back,(on her
own, without discussion with the defendant 3103.01),
disregarding Amber's advanced educational potential. 3109.04
(F)(h), 3109.05(A)(f)
That Amber was prepared, by the defendant, for private
schooling in a "DISCOVERY TYPE" school. Where she could have
advanced at her own level of mental prowess, without concern
for age, grade level, or other factors which the public
school system labors under. 3109.04(F)(h)(d)(a),
3109.05(A)(f)
PRECEDENT-NO.88-CA-119(7ÿth DIST CT. APP.,ÿÿMAHONING,3-23-89)
ÿÿPAPARODIS V ÿÿPAPARODIS
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in ÿmodiffying a
prior custody order when there is some evidence to support
the trial court's finding of a change in circumstances in
that the children's schooling is very poor while in the
mother's custody and the father can offer a better
educational environment, which is in the children's best
interest.
49 OS(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178(1990),ÿÿBECHTOL V ÿÿBECHTOL
When forming a custody order, a trial court should give due
ÿcosideration to which parent performed the role of primary
ÿcaregiver.
That the children are in this state without the consent of
the defendant(3103.01,3109.26(A)), and were being held here
by the court, while the court dismissed or ignored all
testimony presented during the first pre-trial hearing,
motions, and affidavits on file. 3109.25 (C),(1),(2),(3),
3109.26(A), 2151.03, Ohio Rules of Evidence, ÿCiv R 45,3,60,
The fact that the plaintiff will continue to move throughout
her career, removing the children from thier home, school,
friends, and community,"MANY TIMES" (based on the number of
moves already made by the plaintiff). While the defendant can
offer them a stable environment. 3109.04(C),(F)(j),
3109.05(A)(d)
3. STATEMENT "THE FATHER HAS HAD PROBLEMS MAINTAINING
EMPLOYMENT."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER:3109.04, 3109.05, 3105.18,
FEDERAL RULES PERTAINING TO COURT ACTIONS, APPROPRIATE
BEHAVIOR, CIVIL LAWS
THE COURT ATTEMPTS TO IGNORE THE TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE,
AFFIDAVITS, FEDERAL RULES AND OHIO CIVIL LAW
The court appears to regard the plaintiffs testimony that
he could not trust the defendant to hold employment, AS
VIABLE, not taking into CONSIDERATION that the plaintiff
MARRIED the defendant AFTER being with him during those
PRE-MARITAL years, nor considering testimony that he supplied
support for her initial schooling from that work history.
3105.18 C(1)j
HOLDING THE DEFENDANT "AT FAULT" for his attempts at career
advancement, DURING THE "PRE-MARITAL" years, as he collected
the skilled trades necessary for his business, and careers
(HE KEPT TWO (2) CAREERS VIABLE), while apparently
"CONDONING" THE PLAINTIFFS SAME type of WORK HISTORY "DURING
THE MARITAL and PRE-MARITAL years" as she collected her
skills and job experience. OHIO RULES of EVIDENCE, CIVIL
RULES,
Ignoring affidavits, testimony presented at the hearing
concerning the defendants TWO (2) CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, which
did come through DURING THE SAME TIME FRAME AS THE
PLAINTIFF'S, and HIS OWN BUSINESS as a home remodeler
(REQUIRING VARIOUS SKILLED TRADES AND CODE KNOWLEDGE), WHICH
WERE TURNED DOWN BY THE PLAINTIFF for the reasons which the
plaintiff and the court feel "ARE PROPER" for her career.
FEDERAL RULES 3105.18(C)(1),(j),(m)
The plaintiff has the exact same type of work history with
the inclusion of numerous moves. 3105.18
SHE HAS HAD EIGHT (8) JOBS DURING THE TEN YEARS OF MARRIAGE,
WHICH SHE HAS EITHER - RESIGNED FROM AND/OR QUIT (LISTED AS
QUIT) - OR LOST DUE TO SEASONAL EMPLOY.
WHEN, AS PRESENTED TO THE COURT, THE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED
AS/AT/BY:
1. WAITRESS (CENTRAL KENTUCKY) QUIT
2. WAITRESS/ÿÿBARMAID (CENTRAL KENTUCKY) QUIT
3. CAMP JOY EMPLOYMENT (SOUTHERN OHIO) SEASONAL TERMINATION,
BOTH THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE IN OHIO, DEFENDANT'S
BUSINESS WAS SET UP IN NORTHERN OHIO, PLAINTIFF IN
SOUTHERN OHIO.
4. ÿÿBOONESBORRO STATE PARK (CENTRAL KENTUCKY) QUIT AND MOVE
5. ÿÿPENNYRILE STATE PARK (WESTERN ÿÿKY.) QUIT OR SEASONAL
TERMINATION AND MOVE
6.LAKE ÿÿBARKLEY FITNESS CENTER ÿÿASST. MANAGER (FARTHER WEST
ÿÿKY.) QUIT AND MOVE
7.JENNY WILEY STATE PARK RECREATION LEADER/SUPERVISOR (EASTERN
ÿÿKY.) QUIT AND MOVE
8. ÿÿKENLAKE STATE PARK RECREATION SUPERVISOR (FARTHEST
WESTERN ÿÿKY. POINT) QUIT AND MOVE
9.OHIO LAKE METRO PARK EMPLOY (HOW LONG WILL THE PLAINTIFF STAY
AT THIS JOB)
Though all Kentucky Parks jobs were within the system, the
plaintiff had to resign from each position to TRANSFER BACK
AND FORTH ACROSS THE STATE OF KENTUCKY CAUSING THE DEFENDANT
TO FOLLOW. 3109.04(F)(1)(2)(3), 3109.05, 3109.25(C)(3),
3105.18(C)(1),(j),(m)
The plaintiff could have stayed in one park and received the
same advancement, as far as recreational responsibilities
and positional career classification are concerned, leaving
the defendant to continue to work at his career, and not
needing to change his types of employment, or his job.
3109.37, 3105.18(C)(1),(j),(m)
With the additional factor involved that THE DEFENDANT HAS
HAD TO FOLLOW THE PLAINTIFFS CAREER, since she started it,
FOR EIGHT (8) YEARS OF THE MARRIAGE AND FIVE (5) MOVES.
3105.18(C)(1),(j),(m)
THE PLAINTIFF REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT; to give up his
careers and business so that she might work at hers, to
perform househusband-child rearing duties while attempting to
supply additional finances to the family by taking whatever
jobs were available AND/OR baby sitting other peoples
children. 3105.18(C)(1),(f),(j),(k),(m)
49 OS(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178(1990), BECHTOL V BECHTOL
When forming a custody order, a trial court should give due
consideration to which parent performed the role of primary
caregiver.
51 OS(3d) 64,554 NE(2d) 83(1990), KUNKLE V KUNKLE
presented previously
A career which brought less money to the household than the
defendants careers or business would have, according to
testimony supplied at the hearing. 3105.18(C)(1),(j),(m)
Had the plaintiff allowed the defendants careers or
business, the family would have enjoyed a stable environment,
and the plaintiff could have developed her career at a local
park level at the same time, not removing the family from
thier home, community, friends,and (after the children)
schools. 3105.18, 3109.04, 3109.05, 3109.37,
3109.25(C),(1),(2),(3)
THE DEFENDANTS EMPLOYMENT HISTORY DURING THE "MARITAL
YEARS" REVOLVES DIRECTLY AROUND THE PLAINTIFF'S CAREER MOVES
AND CHILD CARE GIVING per testimony supplied at the hearing,
for eight (8) of the ten (10) years of marriage.
4. STATEMENT " HE HAS BEEN TAKING CARE OF THE CHILDREN WHILE
THE MOTHER HAS EARNED THE MONEY TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER: 3109.03, 3109.04, 3109.05,
3105.18, 3109.37, Ohio Rules of Evidence, other
THE COURT IGNORING THE TESTIMONY AND/OR AFFIDAVITS THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS ALSO WORKING AND/OR BABYSITTING OTHER PEOPLES
CHILDREN, TO BRING MONEY TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY, WHILE
PREFORMING THE PRIMARY CHILD CARE GIVING.
3109.03, 3109.04, 3109.05(A)(1), 3109.37,
3105.18(C)(1),(f),(j),(k),(m),(C)(2)
51 OS(3d)64,554 NE(2d) 83(1990,KUNKLE V KUNKLE
49 OS(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178 (1990) BECHTOL V BECHTOL
listed below
THE COURT DOWNGRADING THE IMPORT OF THE CHILD REARING.
USUALLY A PRIMARY CONCERN. 3109.03, 3109.04, 3109.05,
3105.18(C)(1),(m),(2)
49 OS(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178(1990) BECHTOL V BECHTOL
When forming a custody order, the trial court should give
due consideration to which parent performed the role of
primary caregiver.
THE COURT IGNORING THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CHILDREN'S
NECESSITIES, WERE FOR THE MOST PART, SUPPLIED BY THE
DEFENDANT OR HIS FAMILY, NOT THE EFFORTS OF THE PLAINTIFF.
5. STATEMENT "THE FATHER WOULD PREFER TO LIVE IN KENTUCKY
ALTHOUGH HIS EMPLOYMENT THERE IS UNCERTAIN."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER: 3103.01, 3105.18, 3109.03,
3109.04, 3109.05, 3109.25, 3109.26
THE COURT IGNORING THE FACT:
The court was presented with testimony from the defendant
that he would stay in the state of Ohio if required by the
court for custody, though it was not in the best interest of
the children to do so, or to have the children remain in this
state with it's school budgetary cuts (and loss in education
possibilities), climate, rising cost of living, job and
business losses to other states, salaries which do not meet
the high cost of living, and other factors concerning
existence in this state.
That the plaintiff and defendant LIVED in the State of
Kentucky for FOURTEEN (14) years PRIOR to the plaintiff
moving to Ohio in January of 1991. 3109.25(C)(2), 3109.26(A),
3103.01, 3109.03
That Amber (THE ELDEST CHILD) had LIVED in the State of
Kentucky for FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR to the plaintiffs move here
in 1991. 3109.25(C),(1),(2),(3), 3109.26(A)
That Casey (THE SECOND CHILD) had LIVED in the State of
Kentucky for THREE (3) YEARS PRIOR to the plaintiffs move
here in 1991. 3109.25(C),(1),(2),(3), 3109.26(A)
THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER.
3105.18(C)(1)(f),(j),(m)
49 OS(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178(1990) BECHTOL V BECHTOL
THAT THE PLAINTIFF MOVED HERE AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE
DEFENDANT. 3103.01, 3109.26(A)
That the defendant presented POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT in the
State of Kentucky to the court.
That the employers WANTED in-person INTERVIEWS, and were
WAITING FOR THE OUTCOME of the action.
That because of the LACK OF FINANCES CAUSED BY THE
PLAINTIFF'S MOVE AND EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURES, the defendant was
UNABLE TO GO FOR THE INTERVIEWS.
That the same employment and pay available here, was
available in Kentucky, and because of the cost of living
differentials, Kentucky was a more conducive environment.
THAT KENTUCKY'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS A SUPERIOR EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM ACCORDING TO NATIONAL EDUCATORS, AND FEDERAL
STATISTICS FROM TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT.
3109.03, 3109.04, 3109.05,
NO.88-CA-119(7th DIST CT APP MAHONING,3-23-89)Paparodis v
Paparodis,
That the plaintiff did not have this Ohio job until an in-
person interview, nor a home here until (LEAVING THE CHILDREN
FOR TWO (2) WEEKS FOR THE MOST PART AT THE DEFENDANTS
RELATIVES) searching for one. Removing the children from
thier home state, friends, and schools, disregarding her
spouses feelings about the move (3103.01, 3109.26(A)) and
putting the family and childrens welfare in jeopardy by doing
so. 3109.03, 3109.04, 3109.05, 2151.03, 3105.18, 3109.25,
3109.26(A)
That had the court released the defendant and children when
motioned for, the defendant would have been established back
in the families home state, disregarding the previous
fourteen years of the plaintiff's and defendant's residence.
6. STATEMENT " THE MOTHER IS WELL SUITED TO TAKE CARE AND
REAR THE CHILDREN WHILE EARNING A LIVING."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER:3103.01, 3109.03, 3109.04,
3109.05, 2151.03, 3109.25 AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONCERNING
COURT PROCEDURE, Ohio Rules
THE COURT IGNORING:
THE CONCERNS FOR SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN. 3109.04 (C),(F)(1),
(F)(3), 2151.03, AM SUB S.B. 3
The fact that THE DEFENDANT WAS THE PRIMARY CARE GIVER.
3105.18(C)(1),(k),(m), 3109.04
49 OS(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178(1990), BECHTOL V BECHTOL
Testimony at the hearing concerning TWO(2) INCIDENCES
occuring during 9/1991. 2151.03, 3109.04(C),(F)(1)(h)
Ohio Rules of Evidence.
Testimony presented by the defendant that THESE WERE NOT THE
ONLY OCCURENCES. 3109.25(C)(3), 3109.04(C),(F)(1)(h)
The fact that IN-HOME BABY SITTERS MIGHT HAVE PRESENTED
ADDITIONAL SAFETY CONCERN FACTORS to the court had the action
been referred to the proper forum or the assets opened as
motioned for, and asked for at the first pre-trial
conferance. 3105.18, Ohio Rules of Evidence, Civ R 3,27,28,
31,32,45,60
That the plaintiff will be spending more time away from the
children, regarding her new position, and her previous lack
of concern presented by the defendant. 3105.21, 3109.04,
3109.03
That the plaintiff will continue to move the children around
an undeterminable number of times (WHEN BASED ON THE NUMBER
OF MOVES ALREADY MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF, THE COURT SHOWS
LITTLE CONCERN FOR THE CHILDREN), taking them from thier
schools, communities, friends, etc.. 3109.04(F)(1),
3109.05(A)
THAT THE DEFENDANT DID SUPPLY PRIMARY CARE GIVING AND
SUPPORT FOR SIX YEARS of the childrens lives and ten years
of the marriage plus the previous ten years.
3105.18(C)(1),(f),(j),(m), 3109.04,
49 0S(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178(1990), BECHTOL V BECHTOL
That the plaintiff moved to Ohio without the consent of the
defendant. 3109.04, 3109.25, 3109.26(A)
7. STATEMENT " THE FATHER SEEMS TO LABOR UNDER AN INFERIORITY
COMPLEX AND HIS DEMEANOR BORDERS ON THE BIZARRE."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER: 3109.01, 3109.03, 3109.04,
3109.05, 3109.25, 3105.18, CIV R 3,27,28,31,32,33,34,45,
59,60, OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE, OHIO CIVIL LAW, CANNON LAW
THE COURT ATTEMPTS TO IGNORE THE TESTIMONY FROM THE DEFENDANT
THAT HIS EMOTIONAL STATE WAS BEING CONTROLED BY:
HIS CONCERN THAT HIS LAWYER WAS NOT PRESENTING THE HARD COPY
EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO HIM.(his resume to show the court the
business and managerial positions prior to the plaintiff
starting her career, the household records, photo copied
federal, state, and other statistics on schools-wage
scales-cost of living-other, papers produced by Gail, other
pertinent information)
THE CHANGE IN ACTION FROM GROSS NEGLECT TO INCOMPATABILITY
TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING BY THE PARTIES REPRESENTATION
WITHOUT EXPLAINATION TO HIM.
HIS CONCERN THAT HIS LAWYER HAD NOT PRODUCED HIS WITNESSES
IN OHIO TO THE COURT.
HIS CONCERN FOR THE CHILDREN
THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER'S REPUTATION
THE COURT'S APPARENT DISREGARD FOR THE PREVIOUS EIGHTEEN
(18) + YEARS OF THE PARTIES LIFE DURING WHICH THE PARTIES
WERE CO-HABITATING AND/OR MARRIED.
HIS CONCERN FOR THE GENERAL POPULOUS'S REGARD FOR
HOUSEHUSBANDS,(fathers in the role of primary child care
givers).
THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED OPINION THAT MOST COURTS TEND TO
FAVOR BIRTH MOTHER AND/OR GENDER OVER A HOUSEHUSBAND'S
POSITION,
THE COURT'S APPARENT ATTITUDE, WHICH HE OBTAINED FROM
TALKING WITH THE AREA PEOPLES,
THE DISMISSAL OF HIS MOTIONS BY THE COURT, AND THE IGNORING
OF THE AFFIDAVITS,
HIS CONCERN THAT HIS CAREERS ARE LOST DUE TO THE NUMBER OF
MOVES THE PLAINTIFF HAS MADE. HE WAS A CERTIFIABLE AUTO
MECHANIC (13 YEARS), AND HAD SIX (6) PLUS YEARS AS A
CARPENTER BY 1983, AND THE LOSS OF HIS BUSINESS, AND HIS FEAR
THAT THE COURT WOULD IGNORE THESE FACTORS,
HIS FEAR THAT THE COURT WOULD PRODUCE IT'S JUDGEMENT BASED
FACTORS OF THE CASE WHICH WERE CAUSED BY THE PLAINTIFF, AND
HOLD THE DEFENDANT AT RISK FOR THEM.
HIS CONCERN THAT THE COURT HAD NOT USED THE LEGAL MEASURES
(investigations, other) AVAILABLE TO IT, AND HAD NOT OPENED
THE ASSETS SO THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD PROPERLY PRESENT THE
CASE TO THE COURT.
8. STATEMENT " THE INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN WOULD BEST BE
SERVED BY DESIGNATING THE MOTHER AS THE RESIDENTIAL PARENT
AND LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF THE CHILDREN."
AT ISSUE INCLUSIONS LISTED UNDER:3109.03, 3109.04, 3109.05,
3109.051, 3109.25, 2151.03
THE COURT AGAIN IGNORING:
THE SAFETY FACTOR CONCERNING THE CHILDREN. 2151.03,
3109.04(C),(F)(1)(h)
THE UNSTABLE ENVIRONMENT CONCERNING THE PLAINTIFF'S
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND MOVES, 3109.04, 3109.25
THE PLAINTIFF'S APPARENT LACK OF CONCERN FOR FACTORS OUTSIDE
OF HER CAREER AND HER OWN SELF-INDULGENCE. 3109.04,
3109.05, 3109.25
49 OS(3d) 21,550 NE(2d) 178(1990), BECHTOL V BECHTOL
THAT THE PLAINTIFF MOVED TO THIS STATE WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE DEFENDANT. 3109.25, 3109.26(A)
THE PLAINTIFFS PREVIOUS LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE CHILDREN.
9. THE COURT APPEARS TO HAVE DIFFERING SETS OF RULES UNDER
WHICH IT PASSES JUDGEMENT CONCERNING WOMEN AND MEN THAT
BORDERS ON PREJUDICE.
WOULD THE COURT HAVE RENDERED THIS TYPE OF JUDGEMENT WERE
THE ROLES IN THE TRADITIONAL PLACES?
WHERE A WOMAN HAD HELPED SUPPORT HER HUSBAND TO OBTAIN HIS
SCHOOLING AND CAREER, RAISED THE CHILDREN, LOST HER BUSINESS
AND CAREERS, LOST HER INCOME POTENTIAL, EXPRESSED CONCERNS
FOR SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN, BEEN FORCED TO RELOCATE TO A
STATE NOT OF HER CHOICE, HAD HER HUSBAND EXPEND THIER
AVAILABLE CASH, HAD HER HUSBAND USE THE LAST LOAN AMOUNT
TO OBTAIN HIS REPRESENTATION AND OTHER FACTORS PRESENTED
THROUGH AFFIDAVITS TO THE COURT.
WOULD SHE HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE OF ACTIONS
CAUSED BY HER HUSBAND'S REPEATED MOVES AND HER CARE
GIVING RESPONSIBILITIES, AFTER HE REQUESTED THAT SHE DO
SO?
THE COURT IGNORED:
THE PROPER DISPERSAL OF THE MARITAL ASSETS. 3105.18
THE DEFENDANTS CONTINUAL PLEAS FOR PROPER FORUM. 3109.25,
3109.26, Civ R 3, 60,
MOTION FOR PROPER EVIDENCE. 3109.25 (C)(3), 3109.26(A)
Ohio Rules of Evidence, Civ R 45, Federal rules
HIS LACK OF WITNESSES BECAUSE OF THE FORUM AND THE COURT
FAILURE TO OPEN THE ASSETS TO OBTAIN THE COSTS
THEREIN . 3109.25(C)(3), Civ Rules, Ohio Rules of
Evidence
HIS OBVIOUSLY JUST CONCERN OVER GENDER/BIRTH MOTHER BIAS.
3109.01
HIS CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN. 2151.03,
3109.04 (C),(F)(1)(h), 3109.25(C)(3), 3109.26(A)
AM. SUB. S. B.3
AFFIDAVITS ON FILE. 3109.25, 3109.26, 2151.03, 3109.04
FEDERAL RULES, OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE,
THE TESTIMONY AND AFFIDAVITS CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL
ASPECTS OF THE CASE, REGARDING THE MONEYS SPENT AND
CONVERTED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO HER OWN USE AND THE
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION, 3109.04, 3109.05,
FEDERAL RULES, OHIO CIVIL LAW
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN REQUIRED TO GIVE UP HIS
CAREERS, AND BUSINESS TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF'S, AND HAD
SUPPLIED THE PRIMARY CARE GIVING. 3105.18
---THAT THE COURT HAD RESTRAINED THE DEFENDANT AND CHILDREN
TO THIS STATE, DISREGARDING MOTIONS AND AFFIDAVITS FOR
RELEASE AND THE FAMILIES LOSS IN QUALITY OF LIFE BECAUSE
OF THE PLAINTIFF'S MOVE HERE.
THE PLAINTIFFS LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE CHILDRENS WELFARE,
SAFETY, AND TIME SPENT WITH THE CHILDREN.
THAT HAD THE COURT DISTRIBUTED THE ASSETS, DISBURSED THE
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES, AND SUPPLIED THE DEFENDANT
WITH SPOUSAL SUPPORT ACCORDING TO 3105.18, AFFIDAVITS,
AND TESTIMONY, THE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HAD MORE THAN
AMPLE INCOME (WITH HIS WORKING in this state AND/OR
RELEASE TO A LOWER COST OF LIVING), TO NOT ONLY SUPPORT
THE CHILDREN, BUT TO PUT THIER DAUGHTER INTO THE PRIVATE
SCHOOL FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAD PREPARED HER.
OTHER TESTIMONY AND AFFIDAVITS PRESENTED.
\{ **SUMMATION OF EVIDENCE, AFFIDAVITS, AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED
\} THE PLAINTIFF DID MOVE THIS FAMILY TO THE STATE OF OHIO
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT.
THE PLAINTIFF DID CAUSE THIS FAMILY EXTREME HARDSHIP BY
MAKING THIS MOVE TO OHIO.
THE PLAINTIFF DID KNOW THE EXTENT OF HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE
CAUSED BEFORE THE MOVE.
THE PLAINTIFF DID VIOLATE THE AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES OF THE ACTION CONCERNING; MOVES, RETRAINING,
VASECTOMY, CHILDRENS SCHOOLING, STATE TO LIVE IN, AND
MARITAL VOWS.
THE PLAINTIFF DID CAUSE THE DEFENDANT TO CLOSE HIS BUSINESS
SO THAT SHE MIGHT PURSUE OF HER CAREER.
THE PLAINTIFF DID CAUSE THE DEFENDANT TO LOSE HIS CAREER
OPPORTUNITES IN PURSUIT OF HER CAREER.
THE PLAINTIFF DID MAKE REPEATED MOVES DURING THE COURSE OF
HER CAREER, CAUSING THE DEFENDANT TO LOSE HIS CAREER AND WAGE
POTENTIAL, AND CAUSING THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYABILITY PROBLEMS.
THE PLAINTIFF DID REQUEST THE DEFENDANT TO PREFORM
CAREGIVING RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE PLAINTIFF DID ACCEPT THIS OHIO JOB FOR LESS THAN THE
AGREED UPON AMOUNT TO MOVE OF $30,000.00 TO A SOUTHERN STATE.
THE PLAINTIFF DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCEPT OTHER
EMPLOYMENT.
THE PLAINTIFF DID REMOVE THE CHILDREN FROM A SUPERIOR SCHOOL
SYSTEM.
THE PLAINTIFF DID FILE FOR DIVORCE SHORTLY AFTER THE
DEFENDANT WAS HERE THE MINIMUM TIME TO ESTABLISH RESIDENCY
WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS SEEKING SUITABLE EMPLOYMENT.
THE PLAINTIFF DID REMOVE THE FAMILY FROM IT'S HOME STATE,
FRIENDS, SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY.
THE PLAINTIFF DID CAUSE THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE A VASECTOMY
APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR BEFORE FILING FOR DIVORCE.
THE PLAINTIFF DID EXPEND A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF MONEY NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE FAMILY TO SPEND.
THE PLAINTIFF DID CONVERT THE LAST OF THE FAMILY MONEY TO AN
I.R.A. IN HER NAME.
THE PLAINTIFF DID TAKE A THIRD LOAN OUT FOR THE MOVE TO OHIO.
THE PLAINTIFF DID CAUSE SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE CHILDREN.
THE PLAINTIFF DID ACCEPT MORE BILLS THAT THE FAMILY COULD NOT
AFFORD.
THE DEFENDANT DID HELP SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF DURING HER
SCHOOLING.
THE DEFENDANT DID HELP THE PLAINTIFF PAY HER SCHOOL LOAN AND
COSTS, HELPING THE PLAINTIFF TO OBTAIN HER MASTERS.
THE DEFENDANT DID HELP PAY THE NUMEROUS LOANS THE PLAINTIFF
TOOK OUT IN PURSUIT OF HER CAREER.
THE DEFENDANT DID LOSE HIS CAREER OFFERS BECAUSE OF
PLAINTIFF.
THE DEFENDANT DID LOSE HIS BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S CAREER.
THE DEFENDANT DID LOSE HIS CAREER POTENTIAL, AND
EMPLOYABILITY POTENTIAL, BECAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S REPEATED
MOVES AND CARE GIVING RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE DEFENDANT DID PREFORM THE PRIMARY CARE GIVING OF THE
CHILDREN.
THE DEFENDANT DID ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE FAMILY SOLVENT BY HIS
WORKING AND/OR BABYSITTING WHILE PREFORMING THE PRIMARY CARE
GIVING.
THE DEFENDANT DID LOSE HIS REPRODUCTIVE CAPABILITIES BECAUSE
OF THE PLAINTIFF.
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE FOR A DIVORCE IN KENTUCKY, NOR
RESTRAIN THE PLAINTIFF TO KENTUCKY IN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN
REALITY TO THE PLAINTIFF AND KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER.
THE DEFENDANT DID OFFER TO FILE BANKRUPTCY WITH THE PLAINTIFF
IN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER AND RECOVER FROM THIS
MOVE AND THE PLAINTIFF'S EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURES.
THE DEFENDANT DID QUESTION THE COURT AS TO WHY IT DID NOT
WISH EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY TO BE PRESENTED TO IT.
THE DEFENDANT DID QUESTION HIS LAWYER AS TO WHY HE WAS NOT
PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO HIM.
THE DEFENDANT DID QUESTION HIS LAWYER AS TO WHY HIS WITNESSES
FROM OHIO WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE COURT.
THE JUDGEMENT SHOULD THEREFORE BE REVERSED IN FAVOR OF THE
DEFENDANT AND AMENDED PURSUANT TO 3105.171, 3105.18, 3105.21,
3109.03, 3109.04, 3109.05, 3109.25, 3109.37, 2151.03, AM.
SUB. H. B. 514, A.M. SUB. S.B. 3, AND OTHER CIVIL REGULATIONS
AND LAW PERTAINING TO DIVORCE AND CUSTODY.
THE ASSETS EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED,
THE DEBTS DISTRIBUTED, AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT ORDERED,
ACCORDING TO AFFIDAVITS, AND TESTIMONY ON FILE WITH THE COURT
AND OHIO LAW.
THE DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO RELOCATE BACK TO THE STATE IN
WHICH HE AND THE PLAINTIFF HAD LIVED FOR FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS,
A. WHERE THE ELDEST CHILD, AMBER, LIVED FOR FIVE (5) YEARS,
B. AND THE OTHER CHILD, CASEY, HAD LIVED FOR THREE(3) YEARS
PRIOR TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOVE TO THIS STATE, WHICH WAS
AGAINST THE ADVISE, AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT, OF THE
DEFENDANT, AND WHO KNOWINGLY, OF HER OWN VOLITION, CAUSED
THIS FAMILY EXTREME HARDSHIP, A LOSS IN QUALITY OF LIFE, A
LOSS OF THE FAMILIES POSSIBLE FINANCIAL WORTH, THE LOSS OF
THE FAMILIES UNITY, PLACING THE FAMILY AND CHILDRENS WELFARE
IN JEOPARDY, WHO DID THIS WITHOUT CONCERN FOR ANYTHING OTHER
THAN HER OWN INDULGENCE.
TO THE STATE WHICH HAS A BETTER SCHOOL SYSTEM,
A BETTER CLIMATE (ALLOWING THE CHILDREN TO ENJOY THIER LIFE
MORE),
A LOWER COST OF LIVING (HENCE A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE)
AND THE FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN AND THE DEFENDANT.
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS THIS __________ DAY OF
July, 1992 BY MAURICE E. BRAHIER-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
I certify that a copy of this BRIEF, MOTIONS, AFFIDAVITS,
EVIDENTIAL ATTACHMEMTS, COVER LETTER and / or other
containments has been sent via regular U.S. mail to the
plaintiff-appellee's attorney of record this __________day of
July, 1992.
prepared by:
MAURICE E. BRAHIER
NO PRESENT PERMANENT ADDRESS
I may be contacted through
MAURICE BRAHIER
C/O xxxxxxxxx
|
