The Ohio Supreme Court will consider whether a trial court must hold a hearing before declaring an adult incompetent in a divorce case.

The Ohio Supreme Court will consider whether a trial court must hold a hearing before declaring an adult incompetent in a divorce case.

A Cuyahoga County woman going through a divorce contests a decision by the trial court to appoint a guardian ad litem for her, implying that she is incompetent. She argues that Ohio law doesn’t allow a court to declare an adult incompetent without first giving notice and conducting a hearing.

Her case is one of three to be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court next Tuesday during a one-day session of oral arguments.

Trial Court Acts on Own When Appointing Guardian
After more than 30 years of marriage, Charles W. Thomasson filed for divorce from his wife, Carol J. Thomasson, in January 2015. Both had attorneys. The court proceeding was scheduled to start in June 2016, but the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent Ms. Thomasson two days before the case was to begin.

In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Thomasson v. Thomasson, Ms. Thomasson notes that state law permits a court to appoint a guardian ad litem for an adult only if the adult is found to be incompetent. Neither attorney nor her husband challenged her mental capacity during the divorce case, she states. She argues that the trial court made no determinations and pointed to no evidence to find her incompetent. She adds that the rule the court cited in its order involves children, not adults.

Ms. Thomasson contends that the trial court violated her right to due process because she wasn’t notified or given the chance to offer evidence and testimony to dispute any claims about her competency. She points to cases from Illinois, Vermont, and Washington to support her argument.

The appointed guardian ad litem, Jacob A.H. Kronenberg, asked the Supreme Court to intervene on Ms. Thomasson’s behalf in the appeal, but the Court denied the request. Mr. Thomasson didn’t file a brief in the case, so he cannot participate in oral argument.

Second Case: Adoption Dispute Between Father and Stepfather
After a contentious 2004 divorce, the mother of two children refused to allow parenting time with the father. The father filed contempt of court motions in Montgomery County where the two had lived, and the mother relocated three times, eventually settling in Clinton County where she remarried. The father, having discovered the children living in Clinton County, asked the Montgomery County court in 2014 to revive his parenting time with the children. Days later, the children’s stepfather submitted paperwork to adopt them, and a probate court agreed without the father’s consent. In the Matter of the Adoption of M.G.B.-E. centers on whether the father’s case had to conclude before the stepfather’s adoption could proceed.

Third Case: Reprimand Proposed for Cleveland Lawyer
A Cleveland attorney is facing a possible public reprimand in Disciplinary Counsel v. Mancino because of an appeal he filed for a defendant convicted in Geauga County. The father of one of the attorney’s clients told the attorney that the defendant wanted to appeal his conviction. However, the attorney never met, spoke with, or received communication from the defendant. The attorney notes that the defendant submitted an affidavit for the state in the appeal that he hired no attorney and hadn’t asked anyone to take his case. This means no attorney-client relationship existed, and no professional misconduct can occur without such a relationship, the attorney asserts.

Case Previews Available
Along with these brief descriptions, the Office of Public Information today released in-depth previews of the central arguments in the cases.

Oral Argument Details
The Court’s Nov. 21 session begins at 9 a.m. at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus. All arguments are streamed live online at sc.ohio.gov and broadcast live on The Ohio Channel.