COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74720 ROBERT R. KOVALAK : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION DEBORAH S. KOVALAK : : PER CURIAM Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: DECEMBER 10, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. D-186185 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: RANDALL M. PERLA 19443 Lorain Road Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 ROBERT R. KOVALAK, SR., pro se 13811 Stoney Creek Drive North Royalton, Ohio 44133 For Defendant-Appellant: DEBORAH S. KOVALAK, pro se 55 Barrett Road #334 Berea, Ohio 44017 PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Deborah S. Kovalak ( appellant ) appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities for lack of jurisdiction. -2- Appellant assigns the following error for review: I. TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER APPELLANT'S MOTION AND TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE AS PER O.R.C. 3109.06 AND 0.R.C. 3109.04(D)(F) AND ENTERING JUDGMENT ENTRY OF MAY 22, 1998, WHERE TRIAL COURT SIMPLY STATED A DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S MOTION AS APPELLANT HAVING STIPULATED TO, OR THE AUTHORITY TO STIPULATE TO, TRIAL COURT'S JURISDICTION, WHERE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE MATTER IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. Appellant and Robert Kovalak married in 1981. Two children were born as issue of the marriage - Robert Jr. born July 16, 1983, and Carrie born February 25, 1986. The Kovalaks divorced in 1988 with appellant receiving custody of the children. In 1996, custody of the children was awarded to Robert Kovalak because of appellant's interference with visitation between the children and their father. After numerous referrals regarding physical abuse to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services, the children were removed from Robert Kovalak's home and placed in foster care. On May 7, 1998, appellant filed an emergency motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities in the domestic relations court. The trial court denied appellant's motion because it found that juvenile court had assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the children. The trial court stated that it was -3- without jurisdiction to make any orders in the matter of the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. II. In her assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities for lack of jurisdiction because the case was not certified to juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 3109.06. This issue of the domestic relations court's jurisdiction previously has been before this court in an appeal brought by appellant. In Kovalak v. Kovalak (Aug. 6, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73100, unreported, appellant raised the issue of whether the domestic relations court had jurisdiction over the custody of the minor children once complaints of abuse, neglect, and dependency were filed in juvenile court. This court held that the domestic relations court did not err in yielding its jurisdiction to juvenile court. The time to raise the issue of certification was in the earlier appeal which addressed the same jurisdictional issue. Appellant's argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Turner v. Cozzens (March 27, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 70867, unreported. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE, JUDGE -5- LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .