IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. The Supreme Court of OhioDANIEL J. WILLIAMS JR. Case No. 2011-0959

Appellant

vs.

^ EDL"

JUL 20 Z019

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO

On Appeal From The HamiltonCounty Court of AppealsFirst Appellate District

Court of AppealsCase No. C-1100179

HON. JON SIEVE, JUDGE . Hamilton CountyHAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF . Court of Common PleasCOMMON PLEAS DIVISION OF . Domestic Relations DivisionDOMESTIC RELATIONS

Appellee Common Pleas Case No.DR.1001444

MOTION TO EXPEDITE RULING FOR STAY

COMES NOW, the Appellant, Daniel J. Williams Jr., by and through counsel, PRO SE,

and moves this Court GRANT this Motion to Expedite Ruling For Stay of Domestic Relations

Judge Jon Sieve entry judgment regarding parental custody rights in appellant's divorce

proceedings entered July 13, 2011. Furthennore, the appellant asks this court to also stay

Magistrate Paul Meyers of the court of Judge Jon Sieve, property trial court ruling from

proceeding held June 29, 2011. Appellant represents to this court that the judicial officials

at the trial court level continue to exhibit such extreme bias and gross abuse of discretion that

the appellant is unable to receive an impartial administering of the federal and state statutes

in appellant's divorce proceedings. So as to have entered into the record, the appellant will

support this position with an Affidavit of Disqualification filing. Presently, the appellant

1

resides in the marital residence with the minor child. This has been the living arrangement

since the plaintiff party in the divorce proceedings abandoned the marital residence for the

second time shortly after filing for divorce, June 27, 2010 - present. Further details are in

the affidavit of disqualification.

Appellant did file a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction involving

First District Appellate Court denial ruling for reconsideration of writ of mandamus in trial

court divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that Appellant's appeal should

proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct. Prac. R. 2.1(A)(1). The appellant believes that the

determination on this issue directly affects the validity of trial court divorce proceedings ralings.

Again, the central issue of the appeal is a writ of mandamus for Judge Jon Sieve to adhere to

federal and state statutes with oral hearing of motion to disqualify magistrate before rendering

ruling of denial. At this juncture, the appellant believes that the continuance of divorce

proceedings and rulings in the trial court of Judge Jon Sieve is a farce and mockery of the appellant's

federal and state rights regarding marriage, divorce and parental rights. If the Supreme Court

of Ohio issues a writ of mandamus for Judge Jon Sieve, the appellant believes that the judicial

official would simply go through the motions of compliance with the writ but not the spirit to

adherence of impartial consideration of arguments and evidence at a hearing before rendering a

decision.

The U.S. Constitution First Amendment restricts the government from denying a citizen

the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Also, two components of the 14`h

Amendment restricts the states from denying a citizen life, liberty and property without due

process of the law and equal protection of the law. Finally, the Sixth Amendment bounds judicial

officials by an oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution. The judicial officials at the trial

2

court have failed to respect the rights of the pro se litigant. Their actions have violated several

canons of the code of judicial conduct, including: canon 1, "a judge shall uphold the integrity and

the independence of the judiciary"; canon 2A: "a judge shall respect and comply with the law and

shall act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the

judiciary"; and canon 3B: "a judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and

diligently." Likewise, as a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and a commissioned naval officer, the

appellant took an oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies

foreign and domestic. A military officer's oath does not end with the resignation of his/her

commission but is life long as a citizen. This U.S. Constitution is a contract/agreement between

the governed and the government. When a party does not abide by the stipulations in a contract

that party has defaulted and there is a breach of contract. As a citizen held accountable to the laws

of the land, the Appellant must hold the Court accountable to the supreme law of the land, the

U.S. Constitution. When a citizen comes before the court, he/she is an equal party in a contract

and is not in an inferior or superior position relative to all parties involved and should not be

intimidated.

Finally, a question the appellant has asked before and will continue to ask is whether this is 2011

and the court of Judge Jon Sieve or 1857 and the court of Chief Justice Roger Taney and the

Dred Scott case before the legislation of the 14'" Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the

O.R.C. statutes concerning marriage, divorce and spousal support in which a Black man has no

rights that a White man needs to respect? Even more specifically, is this 2011 or pre-1865 before the

13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when Black people were legal property of White people

who exercised all sovereignty and jurisdiction over the affairs of this property including what was

the property's relationship to its offspring in conduct and status? Thus far it seems to be the latter

rather than the former. That being so, then please journalize this with an entry of public record.

3

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays for relief from this Court in the

following form: that the Appellant be Granted a Stay of Judge Jon Sieve

Trial court parental rights judgment entry and subsequent property trial

Judgment until after Ohio Supreme Court ruling on Affidavit of

Disqualification and Notice of Appeal for reconsideration of

writ of mandamus.

Respectfully submitted on I day of Ju)y,)2011.

Daniel J. Williams Jr.Pro Se I11318 Kens ire DriveCincinnati, io 45240(513) 825-1049

4

Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of this motion to expedite ruling for stay and continuance was sent

by ordinary U.S. Mail to counsel for appellee, Charles W. Anness, Assistant Prosecutingi

Attorney, 230 East Ninth Street, Cinci*ti, Ohio 45262 and counsel for divorce plaintiff,

Karl Kilguss, 3515 Springdale Rd, Cincitutati, Ohi© 4^2

1LDaniel J. Williams Jr.PRO SE

ti- dayof July, 2011.

5

COURT OF COMMON PLEASDIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

Stacia E Perry

Plaintiff

-vs -

Case No: DR1001444File No : E180816CSEA : 7081247202

JUDGE'S ENTRYALLOCATING PARENTALRIGHTS ANDRESPONSIBILITIES WITHFINDINGS OF FACT ANDCONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Judge Sieve

Daniel J Williams Jr

Defendant

This matter came before the Court on June 13, 2011 on the issue of allocation of parental

rights and responsibilities. Present before the Court were Plaintiff/Wife ("Mother") Stacia E.

Perry, represented by counsel Karl F. Kilgus, Esq., and Defendant/Husband ("Father") Daniel J.

Williams, appearing Pro Se. Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, the Court finds as

follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

n

The parties married on 02/02/2002. One child was born issue of the marriage namely,

w iams DOB- 061-247200 p s atso one ctuict pnor to marnage

namely, Royal Williams (DOB: 07/20/1990), who is now emancipated. The parties separated on

06/24/2010 according to Father's and Mother's property statements filed 08/05/2010 and

06/25/2010 respectively. Mother filed for divorce on 06/25/2010. Pursuant to the Magistrate's

75N Order entered 08/04/2010, Father was designated the temporary residential parent and legal

custodian of the minor child Ronin. On 10/01/2010, Magistrate Meyers entered a decision which

gave Mother temporary custody contingent on her establishing residence in the Forest Park

School District. Mother and Father have been unable to resolve parenting issues.

In assessing the factors dealing with the best interests of the children under R.C.

3109.04(F)(1), the Court finds as follows:

(a) The Court has considered the wishes of the parents concerning the care of the

child. No shared parenting plan has been filed or proposed by either party. The Court must,

therefore, determine which parent will be designated the sole residential and custodial parent of

the child.

(b) The Court has not interviewed the child to ascertain his wishes and concems.

The Court's parenting specialist has observed the child. That information is contained in the

specialist's report submitted to the Court.

(c) The Court has considered the interactions and interrelationships between the

child and the parents, siblings, and others who may significantly contribute to the child's best

interest.

Iv.ichielle Stzeed testi ied that she has known Mother for severai yaars and that her

son, Elijah, and Ronin attend the same classes and socialize outside class as close friends. She

testified that she frequently observed Mother's interaction with Ronin and characterized it as

• A' t A th tTiT th h 1 fi7 t Rnnirgr-

(d) The Court has considered whether the child has adjusted to the child's home,

school, and community. The Court finds that Mother resides with her sister and brother in-law

Vickie and Al Barker. Mother regularly helps Ronin with homework. She testified that both

parties cooperate "for the most part" regarding school and issues pertaining to Ronin.

Father lives in the marital residence. That residence is in foreclosure and Father

admitted that no mortgage payments have been made for a very long time. Furthermore, Father

testified that he has no current plan for alternate housing should the house be lost through

sheriffls sale. While Ronin is comfortable in both homes, the likelihood for any future stability

in the Defendant's residence is tenuous due to the mortgage payment delinquency status coupled

with the lack of any foreseeable remedy to the situation.

Furthermore, Mother testified that Father's pari-mutuel speculation, (i.e. betting

on horses) is not a viable source of income. Father acknowledged that such activity has not

generated any substantial income for the past two years. Nevertheless, he regards such activity

as a vocation that allows him to structure his schedule around Ronin's special needs. Curiously,

Father contends that he is not a gambler. He regards himself as a professional financial

speculator analogous to other risk-talcers who participate in 401K or stock market investments.

As a seli professed "libertarian", Father foregoes seeking gainfirl employment in order to pursue

an activity that has not provided any positive income.

Plaintiff established a record of employment within the food service industry and

3

employed, Plaintiff has made earnest attempts to obtain employment as evidenced by multiple

job interviews and part-time work at a local restaurant.

The Court finds that Mother offers better stability in providing for Ronin's basic

needs consistent with the child's best interest. Father's current ideologies regarding his ability to

provide the means necessary for Ronin's well-being are unrealistic.

(e) The mental and physical health of all parties has been considered. While the

overall mental health of both Mother and Father has been demonstrated not to be an issue, the

Court acknowledges that Ronin is mildly autistic. The evidence at trial established that Ronin

has experienced certain developmental delays consistent with his diagnosis of being mildly

autistic. He undergoes speech therapy with a speech pathologist and he benefits from a special

I.E. P. and occupational therapy through Winton Woods school system. Ronin sometimes

struggles with comprehension. Nevertheless, he functions well in a normal classroom setting

and does well in reading and spelling and has excellent memory recall.

(f) The Court has considered whether either party is more or less likely to honor

and facilitate visitation and companionship rights approved by the Court and has found this not

to be an issue.

(g) The Court has considered any child support arrearage in this case and has

found this not to be an issue.

(h) The Court has considered whether there have been criminal charges of

domestic violence and found this to not be an issue.

(i) Continuous and willful denial of visitation is found not to be an issue.

time

Prl an mtPnlYnn nt rajnraTlnO rnIISln6

a

The Social Worker recommended as follows:

Ms. Perry should have sole custody of Ronin. Parenting time with Mr. Williams should beaccording to the Standard Order, schedule D, with the addition of Tuesday overnight, notjust evening, and Wednesday overnight prior to the Thursday overnight. In other words, inWeek 1, Tuesday overnight and the weekend. In Week 2, Wednesday and Thursdayovernight.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

R.C. 3109.04(A) specifically provides:

In any divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding and in any proceeding

pertaining to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child, upon

hearing the testimony of either or both parents and considering any mediation report filed

pursuant to section 3109.052 [3109.05.2] of the Revised Code and in accordance with sections

3109.21 to 3109.36 of the Revised Code, the court shall allocate the parental rights and

responsibilities for the care of the child of the marriage. Subject to division (D) (2) of this

section, the court may allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child in

either of the following ways:

If neither parent files a pleading or motion in accordance with division (G) of this section,

if at least one parent files a pleading or motion under that division but no parent who filed a

pleading or motion under that division also files a plan for shared parenting, or if at least one

parent files both a pleading or motion and a shared parenting plan under that division but no plan

for shared parenting plan under that division but no plan for shared parenting is in the best

interest of the child, the court, in a manner consistent with the best interest of the child, shall

allocate the parental rights and tesponsibi:lities for the care of the child primart yto one o e

parents, designate that parent as the residential parent and the legal custodian of the child, and

divide between the parents the other rights and responsibilities for the care of the child,

including, but not limited to, the responsibility of support for the child and the right of the parent

who is not the residential parent to have continuing contact with the child.

DECISION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Mother, Stacia Perry is designated the sole residential and

custodial parent of Ronin Williams (DOB: 06/24/2002).

Father, Daniel Williams, shall have parenting time according to the Court's Standard

Parenting Order Schedule D, attached hereto, with the addition of Tuesday ovemight, not just

evening, and Wednesday overnight prior to the Thursday overnight. In other words, in Week 1,

Tuesday overnight and the weekend. In Week 2, Wednesday and Thursday overnight; or as

agreed upon by the parties. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Meyers for determination

of child support

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Sieve 07/13/2011

Copies sent by Clerk of Courts to:Karl F Kilguss, Attorney For PlaintiffDaniel J Williams Jr, PRO SE

6

ALLOCATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES PARENTING SCHEDULE FORHAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF DOMESTIC REI,ATIONS

ENTER:

STACIA E PERRY JUDGE JON H. SIEVEPLAINTIFF / PETITIONER DATE: JULY 13, 2011

-At,rD-CASENO. DR1001444

FILE No. E180816

DANIEL J WILLIAMS JR CSEA No. 7081247202DEFENDANT / PETITIONER

JUDGE SIEVE

STANDARD PARENTING ORDER

During and after a divorce, there is often a crisis period (from several months to years) during which families are under great stressbecause of loss, conflict and change. Most studies show, and psychologists uniformly agree, that the children who "do best" followingdivorce are from families which maintain a low level of conflict. The absence of conflict is even more critical than the amount of time eitherparent spends with the child.

However, children clearly profit by continued meaningful exposure to both parents. Children need the continuing and regularinvolvement of both parents to feel loved. No specific schedule will satisfy the change in needs of both children and parents over the years.Critical to the success of any schedule is that each parent be flexible based upon the changing needs of a child as the child grows older.

This court order takes into account the changing developmental needs of children. It is recoenized that each situation and each childis different and it is nreferred that parents tailor the parentine schedule to meet the specific needs of their children.A good parenting plan developed for a family should be based upon the following considerations:

1. The developmental needs and age of each child2. The psychological attachments of each child3. The way the child-rearing tasks were shared during the marriage4. The preservation or development of a close relationship with each parent5. A consistent and predictable schedule that minimizes the transition between the households6. Each child's temperament and ability to handle change7. Parents' career demands and work schedules8. The need for periodic review of the plan, noting trouble signs and revising as each child's needs and circumstances change

If parents have not filed with the Court their own agreed written plan, for good cause shown, the following schedule of parentingtime (court order in boldface print) is hereby ordered:

1. TERMINOLOGY:

For purposes of this order, Mother is designated the residential parent and Father is designated the non-residential parent.

For purposes of a Shared Parenting Plan, wherever "residential parent" appears, the name of Mother shall be substituted as ifrewritten, and wherever "non-residential parent" appears, the name of Father shall be substituted as if rewritten. For purposes of thefollowing parenting schedule,'°week 1" is considered to be the first full week of each calendar year with Monday regarded as the firstday of the week.

PARENTS WITH CHILDREN IN MORE THAN ONE AGE GROUP:The policy of the following time allocation is to provide a schedule which is best suited for the particular age of that child(ren). Whena family has children in more than one age group, the parents should either adapt the schedule to fit the needs of each child or followSchedule C.

2. WEEIQ.YSCHEDULEBasic Princ9nles: Birth to Five Yearsi. Particularly with very young children, the more frequently the non-residential parent sees the child(ren), the more appropriate it is to have longer

periodsoftimewitl4thenon-residentialparenkii. If the non-residential parent has not had regular contact with the child, short periods of parenting time must precede extended periods.iii. With ehildrcn over the age of 3 months, and particularly with children in the preschool years, more ovemight time may be appropriate, subject to the

temperameht of the child and the circumstances of each family.

The,non-residential parent shall have parenting time as follows:

A.' Birth to 3 months: frequent short visits in the baby's home, unless otherwise specified. If the residential parent is notworking outside the home, daily from 6:00 pm unti18:00 pm If the residential parent is working outside the home, everyother day from 6:00 pm unti18:00 pm The non-residential parent may take the child out for walks or drives if sleeping andfeeding are provided for.

B. 3 months to 3 years:

Frequent short visits per agreement or,Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 5:30 pmunti18:30 pm

One day every weekend, alternating Saturday/Sundayfrom 10:00 am unti16:00 pm

* Beginning at 12 months, the Saturday parenting time Shallbegin on Friday at 6:00 pm until Saturday at 6:00 pm

C. 3 to 5 years:Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 5:30 pmunti18:30 pm

A rotating four week schedule as follows:

Week 1-Friday 6:00 pm until Saturday at 6:00 pm

Week 2-Saturday 6:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm

Week 3-Friday 6:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm

Week 4-Residential Parent's weekend.

3 MONTHS TO 3 YEARS - PARENTING SCHEDULE

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN

WKl X X DWK2 X X D*WK3 x x DWK4 X X D*

X = EveningsD=10:00AmTo6:00rm

3 TO 5 YEARS - PARENTING SCHEDULE

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN

WKI X X 0

WK2 x x 0WK3 x x 0 0WK4 x

X

X = Evenings0 = Ovemight

Basic Principles - Six to Eleven Yearsi. Elementary school age children can adapt to longer periods of separation from their principal caretakers than younger

children can.ii. The needs of the 6-11 year old child with regard to school schedules, homework, and extra-curricular activities must be

respected.iii. Adjusting to and moving back and forth between two households increases the complexity of life for a child in a divorce

situation. It may, therefore, be necessary to simplify other aspects of a child's life, e.g. by reducing the number of outsideactivities.

The non-residential parent shall have parenting time as follows:D. 6 to 11 years:

Alternate weekends from Friday evening at6:00 pm To Monday morning before school,or summer care.

Overnight on the Thursday evening following thatweekend from 6:00 pm to before school or summercare on Friday morning, and from 6:00 pm to8:00 pm on the following Tuesday evening.

Basic Principles: Twelve and Teenage Years

6- 11 YEARS - PARENTING SCHEDULE

MON TUE WED TNU FRI SAT SUN

WKl X 0 0 0WK2 0WK3 x o 0 0WK4 0

-- - __- i

X = Evenings0= Ovemight

i. Parents should respect a teenager's need to spend time with peers and ir. organized activities, and less time with each parent,especially during weekends and summer holidays.

ii. Quality of time is more important than a rigid schedule. Flexibility in scheduling is necessary. When possible, it is preferable toconsider the teenager's wishes as long as the parents agree.

The non-residential parent shall have parenting time as follows:

E. 12 to 18 years:Tuesday and Thursday evenings from

5:30 pmani 8:30 pm-

A rotating four week schedule as follows:

Week 1-Friday 6:00 pm until Saturday at 6:00 pm

WEEK 2-SATURDAY 6:00 PM UNTIL SUNDAY AT 6:00 PM

Week 3-Friday 6:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm

Week 4-Residential Parent's weekend

12-TEENAGERS-PARENTINGSCHEDULE

WxlWK2WK3WK4

X=Evenings0 = Ovemight

xxxx

xxxx

000

An p7eo o YY? Ci7lr T7 p d^^j a ta R SLV x

C ' w p •^n ^ S `^. ' T.' ^p-n ? O fe '7i`-i dy^p p33

t^C S^ R w e=w n

S _ 9 m wA ^ ^ _ m d a

w ^ ^ » > > >

o^. 3 N S ow m p^ p 6

n q s "

m "O^ R q •3 q

n m .^.^ tYe 6

^ s R mP ^- o a e ^

v a ^

^ m n0 0 _, .. o

Sw

aB

a

OM

n °d

.'R. O y^ S fD .., ^ N^ £f S

QQ• te • fe ^. A ep N^'^"1 m -mit" `< te A m ^iy G' edo 3 n fo

9 svoAs ^^

o= p^ N m n cr,°.'7 ry S tB S m

prV1 7`3 N.=i. M fRD R^y P1 ;^ y p0^O it y ^. T n

M O„^, ^ 2 S'^ N= O emr t^D 3 m• <

m ^ < m

A G

y w mSo.e^e`^ ^ ,,. 't

m O R . '•^. y 19 Y

oCYO=^A•0 ^! y

S fi m fD 4

A "3Yw ^',^: E

a^,w-' p fD f^e f'e

O o^ C m^ mG

-n.-

7 d 9 fC pe C N

^••m 3 ^^ = 3

R T Z ^ ^ N

7o° n S d °

m d^ v^, y nmj ° OO N ^. = G fD

de B es a

`mmeC"^ '^G d p ^ ^

^D

A

gvk d d ?

A y d A A

d q m

oa3 "^ -fDOQ '^' S

3o^'•A

A A 'T1 ^' x'b ^-G ^'C7^%p T A A^-1 ,.C r'Tl'^ 1i1 "0'^ z. ^• r , w^ o ^ o ° y o ^ ^, y!y a w. o- ° m ^' m w ° O

N N ^+ i'^'t ^+ < / ^ /v W W ^ ^ N C O Y ^ 7 rJj P fD `

^i^' ^ w w » -^i ^i ^ ^ wG ^ q ^ c mG d ^ N m^ ^ d ^^ m ° m x°aCrQ

• ^ _x

°' °' °' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^

Y Y Y R Y ^ Y^ R ^ Y ^ Y y Y ^ R Y Y S Yry Y

^f n ^ ^w O

nw* O

nw* O

w.* Ow* O

nwO

nw*^CJO O =^.*, O O ^^, O ^.* O *p,* ,^ •^ t, , ^, [^,

lD^ Y

fDR

R (YY

N"^Y

'1 (DR

Y(4R

Y NY

Y NR

Y NY

R (D^l

R fDY

R (pR

Y^.'

Otnw O O

a ^C

n ^DO O

tn ^DO O

tnC

^•.N* N N ^

cn^

VJ^

^l^

V]7

V]m„

VJ?

l/^^

y

o o a El o o °o 0 0

oo°°i:

^ ^ ?ew

o^wo

^°^wo

ow

'^o

OO ^ °o o°o

0

^

0 0

v^ ^ ^

oo"°

TJlrl^S1a ° ^ o' o p OO °o o oo oo o ^

'

^ o

°

^ ^ d

^ ^ "' R? ^ ^ '-^ ^ N ^ ^O •t 'a ^ v p °'° ^l p

C 6 ,9' o ^°aN

B. Imtheevent a child's illness requires medical attention by a physician, the residential parent shall promptly notify the non-residential parent.

ElecEive surgery shall only be performed after consultation with the non-residential parent.C. Thenon-residential parent shall be entitled to access to student activities relating to the child(ren) to the same extent as is legally provided to the

residential parent and under the same terms and conditions by which access is provided to the residential parent. The residential parent shall

provide the school(s) with a copy of this order.D. The non-residential parent shall be entitled to access to any daycare center that is, or that in the future may be attended by the child(ren), to the

same extent as is legally provided to the residential parent and under the same terms and conditions by which access is provided to the residential

parent. The non-residential parent shall not remove the child(ren) from the daycare premises except during periods of time to which the non-residential parent is otherwise entitled pursuant to this order or except by written agreement of the parents. The residential parent shall provide a

copy of this order to the daycare center.

6. RELOCATION/REMOVALA. In accordance with Rule 2.7 of the Court's Local Rules, the residential parent shall notify the Court and the other parent of anv intent to relocate

by completing Court Form 2.8 ("Notice of Intent to Relocate") and submitting it to the Court's Docket Office. If a Shared Parenting Plan is in

effect, each parent must notify the Court and the other parent of any intent to re!ocate by complying with the provisions of Local Rule 2.7 and

submitting Form 2.8. Form 2.8 is available in the Docket Office.

B. Neither parent may remove the child(ren) from Hamilton County or its contiguous Ohio counties (i.e. Butler, Warren, Clermont counties) and

establish residence for them in another county without first obtainina a court order or an agreed entry permitting such removal. (Note: To have

legal effect, an agreed entry must be signed by both parents, their attorneys (if any), and the Court, and thereafter be filed with the Hamilton

County Clerk of Courts".)

7. MODIFICATION/RESTRICTIONS AS FOLLOWS:

ANY KEEPER OF ANY RECORD WHO KNOWINGLY FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, OR DP 3ISION (H) OF SECTION 3109.051 OF THE

OHIO REVISED CODE, AND ANY SCHOOL OFFICIALOR EMPLOYEE WHO KNOWINGLY FAILS TO COMPLY W1TH THIS ORDER OR DIVISION (J)OF SECTION 3109.051 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE IS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.

WILLFUL NON-COMPLIANCE BY A PARENT WTTH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN A FINDING OF CONTEMPT RESULTING IN THIRTY (30)

DAYS TO NINETY (90) DAYS INCARCERATION, A$250A0 TO $1,000.00 FINE, AND AN AWARD OF THE MOVING PARENT'S ATTORNEY FEES AND

COSTS.BY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREED ORDER, BOTH PARENTS EXPRESSLY, KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVE ANY REQUIREMENT

THAT THE COURT ISSUE SEPARATE FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PURSUANT TO O.R.C. 3109.04,3109.051 AND 3109.052.

Judge Jon H. Sieve July 13, 2011

Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendant/Petitioner

Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner Attorney for Defendant/Petitioner