Opinion
No. 247774.
Decided February 16, 1993.
Leona Reiner, pro se. Donald K. Barclay, for Raphael Reiner.
This matter came on for further consideration this 8th day of February, 1993 before the Honorable Peter M. Sikora.
The court hereby makes the following findings relative to the matter now before this court:
This matter was originally filed in 1968 as an application to determine the custody of the child herein. Several court hearings were conducted subsequent to that time until January 1972. At that time, the case became dormant and was not actively pursued until August 1982. On or about August 9, 1982, the mother of the child herein filed a motion to reduce child support arrears to lump sum judgment and motion to compel execution of special mandate of court of appeals, ordering father to pay child support arrears.
Since that time, litigation has continued with the parties herein filing volumes of pleadings, letters, responses, amended pleading, appeals, affidavits of prejudice and objections. The court hereby notes that the mother-movant-plaintiff, Leona Reiner, has filed in excess of two hundred forty-six documents since 1982 which, for the most part, have caused the father-respondent-defendant, Mr. Reiner, to file responses, motions, letters and other documents in this matter. This ten-year proliferation of paper has grown to the point that the court file now occupies in excess of five legal file jackets. In addition to the shear volume of the case file, the numerous filings have been unending and have unnecessarily delayed the final resolution of this matter.
The court also specifically notes that the mother has consistently filed affidavits of prejudice against several of the assigned judges in this matter. In fact, a review of the entire matter reveals that no less than nine judges (both seated and visiting judges) and one referee have been assigned to this matter, with this court being the most recent assignment to the case. No less than three affidavits of prejudice have been filed by the mother and all have been dismissed by the Ohio Supreme Court.
In addition to the volume of material and multiple judicial assignments, the court also specifically notes that the mother has consistently included improper suggestions or insinuations about alleged improprieties of the court and responding parties. The record is replete with her statements, comments and allegations, which are completely false and have no basis in fact or law. In fact, her continued abuse of this court and its process led the referee in this matter to request to be excused from the case because he was contemplating civil, criminal and ethical action against her for such abuse. To a lesser degree, the previous assigned judge to this case, the Honorable Kenneth A. Rocco, was also affected by such abuse.
Mrs. Reiner's conduct continued with proceedings before this court. In response to such conduct, the court entered an order on August 17, 1992, prohibiting Mrs. Reiner and all parties from the use of improper and slanderous statements in their pleadings. Subsequent to such order, the slanderous conduct continued and caused counsel for the father-respondent to file a motion to have plaintiff cited in contempt of court for written defamatory statements submitted to court since the August 17, 1992 hearing.
The court further notes that Mrs. Reiner voluntarily came to this court seeking redress for a personal wrong and then engaged in conduct that continuously abused this system for ten and one-half years. No court in this country should be subject to such abuse, particularly over such a lengthy period of time. To permit this behavior to continue would give tacit approval to a course of conduct that has not only abused the court and other parties, but has significantly hampered the efficient administration of justice for the parties to this case and to others seeking justice for their perceived wrongs. This court and prior judicial officers charged with the responsibility of resolving this matter have demonstrated an extreme amount of patience with this complainant and have put forth a herculean effort to resolve this matter without utilizing the extreme measure of incarceration for contempt of court.
The court finally notes that Mrs. Reiner is the plaintiff-applicant herein. In 1982, she returned to this court requesting the court's assistance in collecting a child support debt. While part of the underlying action is for the benefit of the child, this action was primarily instituted by the mother for her benefit and assistance. Although she continues to seek such assistance, she also continues with her improper conduct. It is such conduct that has delayed the resolution of this matter and has subjected the court, many of its judges, court staff and other parties to this action to unwarranted and unnecessary abuse. If Mrs. Reiner were involuntarily brought into proceedings before this court and engaged in the behavior she has perpetrated, incarceration for contempt of court would be appropriate. However, this is not the case here and this court deems dismissal as an appropriate remedy to such conduct. In addition, it is the specific finding of this court that plaintiff's conduct has been so "irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for such a dismissal". Schreiner v. Karson (1977), 52 Ohio App.2d 219, 6 O.O.3d 237, 369 N.E.2d 800, paragraph two of the syllabus. See, also, Civ.R. 11.
Having fully reviewed all prior proceedings and pleadings in this matter and having given the matter considerable consideration, the court hereby orders that all motions currently pending before the court are dismissed without hearing pursuant to Juv.R. 19. It is further ordered that the original motion to reduce child support arrears to lump sum judgment and motion to compel special mandate of court of appeals ordering father to pay support arrearage are dismissed with prejudice as against the mother-movant-plaintiff, Leona Reiner. It is further ordered that the dismissal of this action is without prejudice as to the child herein, Eric Reiner.
Judgment accordingly.