In re Disqualification of Panioto - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF PANIOTO.
WYLER v. WYLER.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Panioto (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Ex parte communications made by judge
to health care professionals of parties' children -- Consent by parties to
judge's contacts -- Bias or prejudice not shown.
(No. 97-AP-177 -- Decided January 23, 1998.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
case No. A-9008424.

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification was filed by James J. Condit,
counsel for plaintiff Karen L. Wyler in a domestic relations case before Judge
Ronald A. Panioto. Pending before Judge Panioto is defendant Jeffrey L. Wyler's
motion to modify custody.

Affiant contends that Judge Panioto should be disqualified because of
comments made during a series of hearings last year and because he has engaged
in frequent ex parte communications with health care professionals of the parties'
children. As to affiant's first contention, I have reviewed the transcript of these
hearings submitted by Judge Panioto and cannot conclude that the comments
referenced by affiant demonstrate a bias or prejudice on the part of the judge.
Judge Panioto's comments were made following the testimony of the therapist for
the parties' minor son and in view of the failure of affiant's client to appear or
testify at the hearings. While Judge Panioto indicated that he had sufficient
evidence to support a decision to modify the existing custody arrangement, he did
not do so. Instead, he granted the affiant's request to appoint a different therapist
for the parties' children. Such an action is in direct contradiction to affiant's claim
that Judge Panioto is biased and prejudiced against his client.

With respect to the claim that Judge Panioto has engaged in ex parte
communications with the children's health care professionals, Judge Panioto notes
that the parties agreed in 1994 that he should have regular and direct contact with
the children's therapists and that these contacts have continued with the knowledge
of the parties and without objection. Given affiant's apparent consent to this
procedure, I cannot conclude that the communications demonstrate a bias or
prejudice that mandates Judge Panioto's disqualification.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken
and is denied.

2