Harvey v. McNamee

[Cite as Harvey v. McNamee, 2025-Ohio-2332.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT April M. Harvey, : Petitioner-Appellee, : No. 24AP-605 v. : (C.P.C. No. 24DV-1585) John R. McNamee, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) Respondent-Appellant. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on July 1, 2025 On brief: The Tyack Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Kelsey A. Kornblut, for appellee. Argued: Kelsey A. Kornblut. On brief: Sallynda Rothchild Dennison, for appellant. Argued: Sallynda Rothchild Dennison. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations BOGGS, J. {¶ 1} Respondent-appellant, John R. McNamee, filed this appeal seeking review of an order by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, granting a Civil Protection Order (“CPO”) in favor of petitioner-appellee, April M. Harvey. McNamee argues that the trial court erred in denying his second request to continue the full CPO hearing and that the trial court’s instruction that McNamee would be removed from the courtroom if he spoke to Harvey was an abuse of its discretion and violation of his due process rights. For the following reason, we affirm the trial court’s decision. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND {¶ 2} On August 6, 2024, Harvey filed a petition for a CPO against McNamee in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. Harvey’s petition stated that McNamee assaulted her on July 1, 2024, and that since the assault he No. 24AP-605 2 had been driving past her home and workplace. The trial court granted Harvey an ex parte temporary CPO against McNamee and scheduled a full CPO hearing for August 19, 2024. {¶ 3} On August 19, 2024, McNamee appeared at court with his attorney, Paul Aucoin, and requested a continuance of the CPO hearing. The trial court granted his request and continued the hearing until September 4, 2024. Both McNamee and Aucoin signed the continuance entry, which was a standard form. The continuance entry lists the allowable reasons, provided by R.C. 3113.31, to continue a CPO hearing. There were two reasons selected on this form; the first reason was “[t]he continuance is needed to allow a party to obtain counsel,” and the second reason was “for other good cause.” A handwritten note under the “for other good cause” box further explained, “pending DV criminal case— criminal defense [attorney] just met [defendant] on 8/16.” (Aug. 20, 2024 Continuance Entry.) {¶ 4} On September 4, 2024, both Harvey and McNamee appeared for the full CPO hearing without counsel. When the trial court asked Harvey and McNamee if they were proceeding pro se, McNamee informed the trial court, “I have representation, but she had other obligations, and she asked for a continuance.” He further told the court, “I just hired her last night, so she didn’t have time to put her notice into the system.” (Sept. 4, 2024 Tr. at 4.) Indeed, no notice of appearance had been filed indicating that McNamee had obtained new representation. {¶ 5} The trial court then proceeded to take notice of the previous continuance filed on behalf of McNamee, noting he had been represented by counsel when it was filed. The trial court went on to explain: In accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines, these cases have 30 days to resolve. With this having been filed on August 6th, that’s why it was set for September 4th to give you the maximum amount of time for your attorney to look into this case as well as to look into your other case. (Tr. at 5.) {¶ 6} From the transcript, it appears that while the trial court was going through this explanation McNamee attempted to communicate directly with Harvey. Consequently, the trial court interrupted itself to explain to McNamee that he could not engage Harvey. No. 24AP-605 3 THE COURT: . . . So, no, sir, you cannot mouth anything to her, and ma’am, you can just focus on me, please. There’s a protection order in place, sir. MR. McNAMEE: Yes THE COURT: So you are not to have any communication with her including what you just did in my courtroom, so that’s