 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re S.J.9/21/2005
y be awarded to Ms. Powers.
{ } The trial court issued a preliminary order implementing the magistrate's order and ultimately overruled the parties' objections and adopted the magistrate's decision in full. In overruling Ms. Morris' objections to the magistrate's decision, the trial court explained its reasoning, which is reproduced below - but separated into four parts for ease of reference:
[1.] "[Ms. Morris] challenges the magistrate's refusal to allow the entire Report to be admitted into evidence at the dispositional hearing. It is true that the magistrate did, in fact, decline to admit the Report. The reason for refusing to admit the Report, however, was that it was not offered into evidence until after [Ms. Morris] had already rested her case. [Ms. Morris] waited until cross-examination of the Child's guardian ad litem, the very end of the hearing, to seek admission of the entire Report. Counsel for CSB objected to the admission of the Report, and that objection was properly sustained.
[2.] "Interestingly, at an earlier point in the hearing, when CSB was willing to stipulate to the Report's admission, [Ms. Morris] prevented the Report's admission by insisting that its admission be conditioned on the admission of another document. At that earlier point in the hearing, [Ms. Morris] and CSB could not agree to a stipulated admission of both documents, so neither was admitted.
[3.] "Even though [Ms. Morris] argues that she was entitled to admission of the entire Report in evidence, she also argues that its conclusions were 'so flawed' that it 'should have been totally disregarded in the decision making process.'
[4.] "In any event, significant portions of the Report, both favorable and unfavorable to each party, were openly discussed throughout the hearing, and [Ms. Morris] has not sufficiently demonstrated that admission of the Report would have changed, in any way, the outcome of the dispositional hearing." (Paragraph breaks and numbering added for ease of reference.)
{ } Regarding paragraph [1.], we disagree that CSB's objection was properly sustained, for the reasons set forth in , supra: that is, Evid.R. 106 is not so limited. Moreover, this was not even a basis for CSB's objection, which was:
"[The State/CSB]: Well, Your Honor, because these exhibits, A, were not part of counsel's case, B, there was no one here to authenticate them, [and, C] they are not certified records that were received, I do have an objection to their admissibility. "[The Magistrate]: Okay. I will decline to admit these documents into evidence given the fact then that the mother has already rested." Although the magistrate did not address the State's actual bases for objection, it is worth noting that this was a dispositional hearing, governed by Juv.R. 34(B):
"(B) Hearing procedure. -- The hearing shall be conducted in the following manner: "* * * "(2) * * * he court may admit evidence that is material and relevant, including, but not limited to, hearsay, opinion, and documentary evidence; "(3) * * * Any party may offer evidence supplementing, explaining, or disputing any information contained in the social history or other reports that may be used by the court in determining disposition."
Thus, we do not agree that the objection was properly sustained, nor do we conclude that the evidence was properly excluded on other grounds.
{ } Regarding paragraph [2.], we find that this adds nothing to a proper analysis of the issue at hand and appears to be mere after the fact rationalization. Ms. Morris' failure or unwillingness to stipulate to the admissibility of the Report at an earlier time in the proceedi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|