State ex rel. Brown v. Lemmerman

124 Ohio St. 3d 296, 2010-Ohio-137 (Ohio 2010) · Supreme Court of Ohio · January 26, 2010 · No. 2009-0948

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling a school superintendent to provide a nonresidential parent with copies of school records concerning four children. The court held that the relator sufficiently established his status as the children's parent under R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a), giving him a clear legal right to the records and imposing a corresponding duty on the superintendent. The court declined to address constitutional arguments that were not developed in the merits brief.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Moyer, C.J.; Pfeifer, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O'Connor, J.; O'Donnell, J.; Lanzinger, J.; Cupp, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
January 26, 2010
Docket number
2009-0948
Procedural posture
Original action in mandamus seeking to compel a school superintendent to provide a nonresidential parent with copies of school records concerning four children.
Standard of review
To obtain a writ of mandamus, the relator must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the respondent's part to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Parties
Frank C. Brown Jr., relator v. Cynthia A. Lemmerman, Superintendent, respondent
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

remediescivil procedurestatutory interpretationfamily law

Practice areas

remediescivil procedureeducation lawfamily law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brown established a clear legal right under R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a) to access school records concerning the four children.
  2. Whether the superintendent had a clear legal duty to provide the requested records through mandamus.
  3. Whether the court needed to address Brown's federal and state constitutional theories when he had not argued them in his merit brief.

Holdings

  1. A parent who is not the student's residential parent must be permitted access to the student's records or information on the same terms and conditions applicable to the residential parent. Brown's affidavit and supporting court records sufficiently established that he was the father of the four children and therefore satisfied the statute.
  2. Brown was entitled to a writ of mandamus because he established a clear legal right to the requested records, a corresponding clear legal duty on the superintendent to provide them, and the absence of an adequate ordinary legal remedy.
  3. The court did not need to address the constitutional claims because Brown had not cited those provisions in his records requests and had not presented argument concerning them in his merit brief.

Key quotations

A parent of a student who is not the student’s residential parent, upon request, shall be permitted access to any records or information concerning the student under the same terms and conditions under which access to the records or information is available to the residential parent of that student * * *. (¶ 11)
Therefore, Brown has established a clear legal right to the requested records as well as a clear legal duty on the part of the superintendent to provide them. Accordingly, we grant the writ. (¶ 17)

Factual background

Frank C. Brown Jr., who was serving a prison sentence, requested school records concerning four children whom he claimed were his children. The school district's records contained conflicting information about his paternity, and the superintendent did not respond to his later request for records. Brown submitted court entries showing that he and the children's mother were the parents and that he had previously been designated the children's temporary residential parent and legal custodian.

Procedural history

Brown filed an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio after the superintendent failed to respond to his 2008 request for school records because of conflicting evidence concerning his paternity. The court granted an alternative writ, allowed the parties to submit evidence and briefs, and then considered the merits. The court granted the writ.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…