In re Guardianship of A.K.

[Cite as In re Guardianship of A.K., 2025-Ohio-917.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In the Matter of :

the Guardianship of [A.K.], No. 24AP-297

: (Prob. No. 595596)

[M.S., Mother,

: (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Appellant].

:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on March 18, 2025

On brief: [Shayla D. Favor], Prosecuting Attorney, and

Thomas W. Ellis, for appellee Franklin County Guardianship

Service Board. Argued: Thomas W. Ellis.

On brief: Jeckering & Associates, LLC, Bradley N.

Jeckering, and Mark A. Rest, for appellant.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,

Probate Division

DORRIAN, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, M.S., appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of

Common Pleas, Probate Division, overruling appellant’s objections to and adopting a

magistrate’s decision, and dismissing her guardianship complaints. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Since 2019, the Franklin County Guardianship Service Board (“GSB” or

“guardian”) has been guardian of the person for A.K., appellant’s adult daughter. A.K. had

been found to need guardianship based on mental impairment as a result of moderate

developmental disabilities as well as diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, intellectual

impairment, and Fragile X syndrome.

No. 24AP-297 2

{¶ 3} During the guardianship period, disagreements have arisen regarding A.K.’s

diet, medical treatment, and her visitation time with appellant and A.K.’s father. These

disagreements have led to a number of court filings and court proceedings.

{¶ 4} On March 26, 2021, following an evidentiary hearing on the filings pending

at the time, the probate court magistrate issued a decision (the “2021 magistrate’s

decision”). Relevant to this appeal is the magistrate’s recommendation regarding A.K.’s

diet, that she “continue to follow an organic, gluten-free, vegan diet, [and] that the GSB be

authorized to determine further details of [A.K.]’s diet without resort to court order.”

(Mar. 26, 2021 Mag.’s Decision at 28.) The 2021 magistrate’s decision also made

recommendations on other issues in dispute at the time, including whether the GSB could

make decisions about what toiletries and household items A.K. used, whether she should

receive certain vaccinations, and how visitation transitions should occur. Those

determinations are not at issue in this appeal.

{¶ 5} Appellant timely submitted objections to the magistrate’s decision. She also

filed a motion to remove the GSB as A.K.’s guardian along with a request for an emergency

hearing on that motion.

{¶ 6} On August 24, 2021, the probate court issued a judgment entry overruling

appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and adopting the 2021 magistrate’s

decision in full. In that judgment entry, the probate court also denied appellant’s motion

to remove the GSB as guardian, concluding “[t]hese motions are an attempt to re-argue the

same issues addressed by the Magistrate’s Decision and will not be entertained.” (Aug. 24,

2021 Jgmt. Entry at 5.) The probate court also noted that “[appellant] has filed a number

of similar motions and complaints on these same issues in the past, without receiving her

desired result. The court will review any future similar filings to determine if such filing

has a basis for being considered frivolous conduct pursuant to R.C. 2323.51.” (Aug. 24,

2021 Jgmt. Entry at 6.)

{¶ 7} No appeal was filed, but appellant filed additional pleadings in the form of

guardianship complaints against the GSB in December 2021. The probate court

determined that the submissions were not complaints against the guardian, but instead,

appellant’s attempts to re-litigate issues already decided by the court.

No. 24AP-297 3

{¶ 8} On October 13, 2022, the GSB filed a motion to lift A.K.’s diet restrictions

during an anticipated trip to Disney World that A.K. would attend with her day program.

The magistrate granted the request for the duration of the trip but ordered the restricted

diet to be resumed upon return.

{¶ 9} On May 25, 2023, the GSB moved to modify the 2021 magistrate’s decision

to allow A.K.’s restricted diet to be a “recommended” diet rather than a “required” diet.

{¶ 10} On May 26, 2023, appellant filed a motion to remove the GSB as guardian

and to appoint appellant as successor guardian along with a request for an emergency

hearing, as well as a motion for contempt to find the GSB in violation of the 2021

magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 11} On June 6, 2023, appellant filed guardianship complaints against the probate

court and the GSB.

{¶ 12} On August 16, 2023, the probate court magistrate1 held an evidentiary

hearing on the complaints and pending motions.

{¶ 13} On October 5, 2023, the magistrate issued its decision granting the GSB’s

motion to modify the 2021 magistrate’s decision to change A.K.’s “required” diet to a

“recommended” diet (the “2023 magistrate’s decision”). The magistrate also denied

appellant’s motion for contempt and motion to remove the GSB as guardian. Finally, the

decision dismissed appellant’s guardianship complaints against the probate court and the

GSB.

{¶ 14} Appellant filed objections to the 2023 magistrate’s decision, along with a

transcript of the evidentiary hearing.

{¶ 15} On April 9, 2024, the probate court issued a judgment entry overruling

appellant’s objections and adopting the 2023 magistrate’s decision in full.

{¶ 16} On May 9, 2024, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal of the probate

court’s judgment.

1 The same magistrate has presided over the 2021 and 2023 proceedings referenced herein.

No. 24AP-297 4

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 17} Appellant assigns the following four assignments of error for our review:

[I.] The Trial Court abused its discretion in adopting the 2023

Magistrate’s Decision based on unauthenticated reports,

which are inadmissible hearsay.

[II.] The Trial Court abused its discretion in adopting the

2023 Magistrate’s Decision to not hold the GSB in contempt

for violating the 2021 Decision.

[III.] The Trial Court abused its discretion in adopting the

2023 Magistrate’s Decision based on unqualified lay person

testimony improperly considered as expert testimony.

[IV.] The Trial Court abused its discretion in failing to

individually rule on each objection made by [M.S.] to the 2023

Magistrate’s Decision.

III. Discussion

{¶ 18} Under Civ.R. 53, when ruling on objections to a magistrate’s decision, a trial

court must undertake an independent, de novo review of the matters objected to and decide

whether the magistrate properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied

the law. In re S.M.B., 2019-Ohio-3578, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). The standard of review on appeal

from a trial court judgment adopting a magistrate’s decision “varies with the nature of the

issues that were (1) preserved for review through objections before the trial court and

(2) raised on appeal by assignment of error.” In re Guardianship of Schwarzbach, 2017-

Ohio-7299, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 19} Appellant’s first and third assignments of error argue that the magistrate

decision improperly relied on certain evidence in violation of the rules on hearsay testimony

and lay person testimony. Both challenges involve evidentiary rulings that are within the

discretion of the trial court, which we review for an abuse of discretion. See State v.

McClain, 2014-Ohio-93, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.); State v. Ollison, 2016-Ohio-8269, ¶ 39 (10th

Dist.); Terry v. Caputo, 2007-Ohio-5023, ¶ 16. A trial court abuses its discretion when its

decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio

St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

No. 24AP-297 5

{¶ 20} Appellant’s first assignment of error argues that the magistrate improperly

relied on unauthenticated reports from Jeanne Stuntz of the Human Rights Committee at

the Board of Developmental Disabilities, and a nutritionist, Candace Pumper, R.D., as

inadmissible hearsay because neither individual testified at the hearing. Appellant argues

that, contrary to this court’s precedent, the hearsay rules should apply to guardianship

hearings.

{¶ 21} We have held that the hearsay rules are “clearly inapplicable” to guardianship

proceedings. In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Stancin, 2003-Ohio-1106, ¶ 13

(10th Dist.). We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument that, on these facts, this court

should adopt decisions from Connecticut and Wisconsin and find the hearsay rules

applicable.

{¶ 22} Because the hearsay rules are inapplicable here, we conclude that the

magistrate properly considered the reports in question. Thus, appellant’s first assignment

of error is overruled.

{¶ 23} Appellant’s third assignment of error argues that the magistrate improperly

relied on unqualified lay person testimony from A.K.’s direct-support provider and

program manager at the day programming facility A.K. attended. Appellant argues that

because these witnesses were not qualified as expert witnesses, their testimony regarding

A.K.’s lack of adverse reaction to consuming food outside her restricted diet should have

been disregarded.

{¶ 24} Evid.R. 701 provides as follows: “If the witness is not testifying as an expert,

the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or

inferences which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to

a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”

“[A]n appellate court reviews the decisions of the trial court concerning lay witness

testimony for an abuse of discretion.” Ollison, 2016-Ohio-8269, at ¶ 39 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 25} The witnesses here were not asked for, and did not provide, medical

testimony or conclusions. Instead, the witnesses commented on their observations of A.K.

after consuming foods outside of her restricted diet, including observations that A.K.

appeared happy and “seemed to enjoy” the food. (Aug. 16, 2023 Tr. Vol. I at 19-20.) We

find that the witness testimony was about information “rationally based on the perception

No. 24AP-297 6

of the witness,” and “helpful to . . . the determination of fact in issue.” See Evid.R. 701.

Furthermore, the 2023 magistrate’s decision also relies on information from A.K.’s primary

care physician and a nutritionist to whom A.K. was referred by her primary care physician

to inform its decision about A.K.’s dietary restrictions. Thus, the trial court did consider

that the GSB had consulted with medical professionals regarding the same, and the trial

court was not relying solely on the perception of lay people. Therefore, the trial court did

not abuse its discretion by considering the witness testimony.

{¶ 26} Accordingly, appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 27} Appellant’s second assignment of error argues that the trial court abused its

discretion by not finding the GSB in contempt for violating the 2021 magistrate’s decision

regarding A.K.’s restricted diet. We review contempt decisions for an abuse of discretion.

See Haun v. Haun, 2024-Ohio-1526, ¶ 46 (11th Dist.); O’Grady v. O’Grady, 2012-Ohio-

4208, ¶ 35 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 11 (1981).

{¶ 28} The 2021 magistrate’s decision concluded as follows regarding the GSB’s role

in A.K.’s diet:

[A.K.] shall continue to follow an organic, gluten-free, vegan diet.

The GSB is authorized to determine further details of [A.K.’s] diet

without resort to court order [.] . . . The GSB has already sought

medical advice on [A.K.’s] diet to supplement the information

provided by [appellant]. The GSB shall establish a diet with firm

parameters, in consultation with Dr. Lewis and any other medical

professional it deems necessary, which may include a nutritionist

and/or a primary care physician, once selected. The GSB is not

required to follow the recommendation of any specific medical

professional, and may continue its practice of gathering

information and weighing the advice of different medical

professionals to determine the diet that will best serve [A.K.’s]

needs. The court will not revisit this issue.

(Emphasis deleted.) (Mar. 26, 2021 Mag.’s Decision at 24.)

{¶ 29} The 2023 magistrate’s decision further explained the 2021 decision as

follows:

The court must note that the [2021 magistrate’s decision] was

never meant to be interpreted to forbid [A.K.] from ever deviating

from her regular diet. This interpretation has led to extensive court

involvement through the repeated filing of motions, requests for

hearing, complaints, and objections reporting deviations from

[A.K.’s] diet.

No. 24AP-297 7

...

The [2021 magistrate’s decision] further states that the court will

not revisit the issue of [A.K.’s] diet. This simply meant that the

[GSB], as her guardian, is the final decision maker on setting the

parameters of [A.K.’s] diet through the process of gathering

information and consultation with medical professions [sic] as

deems necessary without further court involvement. As a result,

the court will not entertain future challenges to the diet from

people other than [A.K.].

(Oct. 5, 2023 Mag.’s Decision at 14-15.)

{¶ 30} Based on the foregoing, we find that it was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or

unconscionable in this case for the trial court to adopt the magistrate’s decision denying

appellant’s motion to hold the GSB in contempt regarding the dietary guidance found in

the 2021 magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 31} Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we overrule

appellant’s second assignment of error.

{¶ 32} Appellant’s fourth assignment of error argues that the trial court abused its

discretion by failing to individually rule on each of appellant’s objections to the magistrate

decision.

{¶ 33} Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) states, “[i]f one or more objections to a magistrate’s

decision are timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections.” In so ruling, “the court

shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the

magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.

Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). Thus, a trial court reviews a magistrate’s decision de novo. In re

A.R.M., 2022-Ohio-954, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.); In re S.M.B., 2019-Ohio-3578, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). “A

failure of the trial court to rule on the objections and conduct an independent review of the

magistrate’s recommendations as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) is an abuse of discretion.”

Pietrantano v. Pietrantano, 2013-Ohio-4330, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). However, “this rule does

not require the trial court to address each and every portion of an objection raised by the

party, but to rule on each objection.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ¶ 20.

{¶ 34} Appellant argues that she raised “four distinct objections” to the 2023

magistrate’s decision: (1) the magistrate improperly considered the unauthenticated report

from Pumper because it was inadmissible hearsay; (2) the magistrate improperly

No. 24AP-297 8

considered expert testimony of lay witnesses; (3) the magistrate improperly admitted the

unauthenticated report by the Human Rights Committee because it was inadmissible

hearsay; and (4) the magistrate’s recommendations were against the manifest weight of the

evidence. (Appellant’s Brief at 18.)

{¶ 35} In its judgment entry adopting the 2023 magistrate’s decision, the trial court

set forth its analysis in two paragraphs:

After a thorough and independent review, and without

reproducing the magistrate’s reasoning in its entirety, the court

agrees with the magistrate’s ultimate decision. The arguments

raised by [appellant] with respect to the magistrate’s consideration

of unauthenticated reports and testimony are without merit as the

hearsay rules do not apply in guardianship proceedings. In re

Guardianship & Conservatorship of Stancin, 10th Dist. Franklin

No. 02AP-637, 2003-Ohio-1106, ¶ 13 (hearsay rules inapplicable

due to the non-adversarial nature of the guardianship proceedings

and the inherent conflict between the purpose of the guardianship

proceedings and the limitations imposed by the hearsay rules).

The court finds the magistrate accurately and properly weighed the

facts in granting the [GSB’s] motion to modify [A.K.’s] diet from a

“required” diet to a “recommended” diet; denying [appellant’s]

motions for contempt and to remove the [GSB] as guardian;

dismissing [appellant’s] motion for emergency hearing as moot;

and dismissing the guardianship complaints filed on June 7, 2023

against the Probate Court and [GSB].

Accordingly, [appellant’s] objections filed on November 2, 2023

and January 30, 2024 are OVERRULED and the magistrate’s

decision issued October 5, 2023 is hereby APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety.

(Emphasis in original.) (Apr. 9, 2024 Jgmt. Entry at 3-4.)

{¶ 36} Appellant acknowledges that the trial court addressed the two objections

regarding hearsay and that the trial court also found the magistrate accurately and properly

weighed the facts. But appellant argues there is ambiguity as to which objections were ruled

on because the trial court failed to rule on each objection separately. In this way, appellant’s

argument appears to be more of a technical one than a substantive concern that the trial

court did not perform its independent analysis of the magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 37} In the circumstances of this case, we do not find there is any ambiguity that

the trial court ruled on each of appellant’s objections. And, while we agree with the Twelfth

No. 24AP-297 9

District Court of Appeals in Pietrantano that “it would be a better practice for the trial court

to more fully discuss and review all aspects of a party’s objections,” 2013-Ohio-4330, at

¶ 23, we cannot find, on the facts of this case based on the arguments that appellant

presents, that the trial court did not rule on each of appellant’s objections. Therefore, we

do not find that the trial court failed to comply with its duty under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).

{¶ 38} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

by allegedly failing to rule on each objection in contravention of Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).

Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s fourth assignment of error.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 39} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant’s four assignments of error

and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division.

Judgment affirmed.

EDELSTEIN and LELAND, JJ., concur.