Sprouse v. Brooks

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 13, 2026
• Docket: 1-26-01
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Sprouse v. Brooks, 2026-Ohio-2679.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

KENDRA MARIE SPROUSE, CASE NO. 1-26-01

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

GABRIEL BROOKS, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Division Trial Court No. DR 2011 0201

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: July 13, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Gabriel C. Brooks, Appellant Case No. 1-26-01

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Gabriel Brooks (“Brooks”) brings this appeal from

the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County, Domestic Relations

Division overruling Brooks’ objections to the magistrate’s decision and affirming

the decision of the magistrate. Brooks claims on appeal that the trial court erred for

numerous reasons. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} On December 6, 2010, Kendra Sprouse (“Sprouse”) executed an

affidavit in support of establishing paternity. The Bureau for Child Support

Enforcement in Parkersburg, West Virginia forwarded the affidavit, together with a

uniform support petition, a child support transmittal #1-initial request, and a form

of general testimony to the Allen County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“the

Agency”) requesting an establishment of paternity and child support for a child born

in Parkersburg, West Virginia in January of 2008. Doc. 1-4. The child was

allegedly conceived in Lima, Ohio. Doc. 2. Genetic material was drawn from

Brooks on March 9, 2011, and from Sprouse and the child on March 16, 2011. Doc.

5. On April 14, 2011, the Agency filed, in the Court of Common Pleas, Division of

Domestic Relations in Allen County, Ohio, the above documents together with the

genetic test results noting that Brooks could not be excluded as the biological father

of the child with the probability of paternity being 99.99%. Doc. 5. On July 12,

2011, the trial court entered an agreed judgment entry in which Brooks

-2- Case No. 1-26-01

acknowledged that he is the father of the child and he agreed to pay $263.43 per

month in child support. Doc. 14. No appeal was taken from this judgment.

{¶3} On December 2, 2014, the Agency filed a motion for contempt against

Brooks alleging that he had not paid the support he owed. Doc. 16. Due to Brooks’

status as indigent, the trial court appointed counsel for the contempt hearing. Doc.

21. The hearing on the motion was set for August 3, 2015, but Brooks failed to

appear. Doc. 26. The trial court then issued a bench warrant. Doc. 26. The matter

was resolved by an agreed judgment entry in which Brooks agreed to serve a 30 day

jail term and agreed to comply with wage withholding when employed. Doc. 33.

Brooks also agreed to pay his child support monthly as well as an additional 20% to

be applied to the arrearage when he was employed. Doc. 33. The parties agreed

that the jail sentence would be suspended if Brooks complied with the terms. Doc.

33. On December 14, 2015, the trial court held a second hearing and found that

Brooks had complied with the prior order, and continued the suspension of the jail

sentence pending Brooks’ continued compliance with the agreed support order.

Doc. 36.

{¶4} On January 17, 2023, the Agency filed notice that Sprouse had

requested an administrative review of child support with the date certain being

November 7, 2022. Doc. 38. The Agency conducted the review and recommended

that Brooks be ordered to pay $1,058.26 per month in child support and cash medical

support. Doc. 38. The change was based upon a substantial increase in Brooks’

-3- Case No. 1-26-01

income. Doc. 39. The trial court granted the modification of child support after the

administrative review. Doc. 39. No appeal was taken from this modification.

{¶5} On April 3, 2025, another administrative review was conducted by the

Agency. Doc. 44. The Agency recommended that Brooks be ordered to pay child

support and cash medical support totaling $638.99 per month. Doc. 44.

Additionally, the Agency recommended that Brooks be ordered to pay $125.29 per

month on arrears. Doc. 44. Brooks requested a review hearing and then a judicial

review. Doc. 44. The basis for Brooks’s claim was that there was “Fraud!!

Violations of my Constitutional Rights! Violations of the Constitution! Never had

Jurisdiction over me! Paternity not properly made!” Doc. 44. A judicial hearing on

Brooks’s review request was held on September 17, 2025. Doc. 65. On October 5,

2025, Brooks filed a motion to close the case and terminate child support, a motion

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a motion to vacate retroactive child support

arrears, an emergency motion to quash enforcement, and other motions not raised

in this appeal. Doc. 50-55.

{¶6} On October 22, 2025, the magistrate entered a decision on all of these

matters. Doc. 65. The magistrate found that Brooks had agreed to the genetic

testing and that he had not previously raised any objection to being asked to submit

to the testing and had not filed an appeal from the July 12, 2011 judgment entry

establishing paternity. Doc. 65 at 4. Likewise, Brooks did not object to the prior

contempt filing, agreed to the entry of contempt, and did not appeal from that

-4- Case No. 1-26-01

judgment entry. Doc. 65 at 5-6. As to the November 2022 administrative review

of child support, the magistrate again found that Brooks did not raise any objection

and did not appeal from the judgment entry adopting the recommendations of the

Agency. Doc. 65 at 6. The magistrate then found after reviewing the Agency’s

recommendations that the evidence before it revealed no error in the Agency’s

calculations. Doc. 65 at 8. The magistrate then ordered Brooks to pay an aggregate

amount of $626.46 per month in child support and cash medical support. Doc. 65

at 9.

{¶7} On October 27, 2025, Brooks filed objections to the magistrate’s

decision. Doc. 66. Brooks claimed 1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction as it should

have been heard by the juvenile court; 2) legal paternity was never established

without coercion; 3) since paternity was not properly established, child support

could not be ordered; 4) constitutional violations; 5) fraud; 6) separation of powers

violation; and lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 66. No transcript of the hearing was

requested or provided by Brooks. The Agency filed a response to the objections.

Doc. 70. On December 3, 2025, Brooks filed a demand for a “full audit of

retroactive arrears from day one”. The trial court entered judgment on December

10, 2025, overruling the objections raised by Brooks and implementing the decision

of the magistrate regarding the administrative review of child support. Doc. 74 and

75. On December 29, 2025, the trial court entered judgment denying Brooks’

outstanding motions. Doc. 76. Brooks filed his notice of appeal from the December

-5- Case No. 1-26-01

10, 2025 ruling on January 5, 2026, and raised the following assignments of error

on appeal.

First Assignment of Error

The trial court and IV-D agencies lacked jurisdiction and lawful authority to impose and enforce child support against [Brooks] because (1) no signed Acknowledgment of Paternity, valid court adjudication or properly authenticated birth certificate with clerk’s signature established paternity prior to Ohio enforcement; (2) Ohio unlawfully assumed jurisdiction after West Virginia’s General Testimony showed no paternity established and no support order existed; and (3) any subsequent paternity determination resulted from coercion through threats of contempt, jail, license suspension, passport denial, and wage garnishment.

Second Assignment of Error

Procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires that, before the State deprives a person of significant property or liberty interests it provides notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing factors – private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation , and governmental burden--underscore that pre-deprivation hearings are essential where continued wage garnishment, tax offsets, and passport restrictions are based on disputed and undocumented arrears.

Third Assignment of Error

Extrinsic fraud and unconstitutional conflicts undermine the proceedings.

Fourth Assignment of Error

State actors violated constitutional guarantees under color of law.

-6- Case No. 1-26-01

Fifth Assignment of Error

The trial court and state actors violated [Brooks’] due process rights and App.R. 7 during the pendency of this appeal by continuing enforcement activity after the appeal was docketed, conducting an unnoticed January 7, 2026 hearing and case closure, and causing continuing harm through credit reporting and related collection activity.

The December 10, 2025 judgment entry was the only order appealed.

Jurisdiction

{¶8} In Brooks’ first assignment of error, he alleges that the trial court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. “‘Subject matter jurisdiction

refers to the constitutional or statutory power of a court to adjudicate a particular

class or type of case,’ . . . and a court’s subject matter jurisdiction ‘is determined

without regard to the rights of the individual parties involved in a particular case.’”

Ostanek v. Ostanek, 2021-Ohio-2319, ¶ 21 quoting Corder v. Ohio Edison Co.,

2020-Ohio-5220, ¶ 14. The focus is on whether the court is competent to hear the

controversy. Id. If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any judgment of that

court is void. Id. at ¶ 22. Pursuant to R.C. 2301.03(T), the judge of the court of

common pleas, division of domestic relations in Allen County, Ohio is assigned “all

cases arising under Chapter 3111 of the Revised Code, all proceedings involving

child support . . . .” R.C. 3111.02 governs the establishment of a parent and child

relationship. Since the Ohio Revised Code specifically grants subject matter

jurisdiction over these matters to the Domestic Relations Division of the Common

-7- Case No. 1-26-01

Pleas Court in Allen County, Brooks claim that the trial court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction is in error.

{¶9} Brooks also claims that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over

him. Personal jurisdiction goes to the trial court’s authority to enter a judgment

against a party in an action. State v. Montgomery, 2026-Ohio-1243, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.).

“It is axiomatic that Ohio courts can exercise jurisdiction over a person who is a

resident of Ohio.” Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. Dimarco, 2007-Ohio-5753, ¶

5. Additionally, personal jurisdiction is waived by a party’s first appearance in a

case without challenging the personal jurisdiction of the court. In re J.R., 2024-

Ohio-626, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.). This case began in 2011. At that time Brooks was

personally served with the pleadings at his residence in Lima, Ohio on May 6, 2011.

Doc. 9. By residing in Allen County, Ohio, Brooks was subject to the personal

jurisdiction of an Allen County Ohio trial court. Brooks appeared for a hearing on

July 11, 2011 in which he acknowledged he was the biological father of the child

and agreed to pay child support as shown by the agreed entry signed by Brooks.

Doc. 14. Brooks also agreed to pay the arrearages of child support owed by him in

2015. Doc. 33 and 36. When the Agency conducted an administrative review of

child support in 2022, Brooks raised no objections to the modified child support.

Thus, even if the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over him, he waived

any objection to the assumption of personal jurisdiction by the trial court by

voluntarily appearing before the trial court without reservation.

-8- Case No. 1-26-01

{¶10} Brooks next argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order child

support because there was no determination of paternity in West Virginia. Initially,

this court notes that the determination of paternity in Ohio occurred in 2011. Brooks

did not object to the finding of paternity and, in fact, admitted to it in the agreed

entry in 2011. At no point did Brooks appeal from the judgment establishing

paternity. As such the matter is barred from being raised 15 years later by the

doctrine of res judicata. In re L.C., 2025-Ohio-193 (2d Dist.). Thus, the trial court

did not lack jurisdiction to enter the judgments it did and the first assignment of

error is overruled.

Due Process

{¶11} In his second assignment of error, Brooks argues that he was denied

due process. His argument is that 1) he was denied a hearing before his tax

refunds and wages were garnished, his tax refunds were claimed, and restrictions

were placed on his passport; 2) the clerk of courts was untimely in docketing

which caused inaccurate garnishments; and 3) he was denied the opportunity to

contest seizures. The general rule is that an appellate court will limit its review to

issues decided by the trial court in the judgment from which the appeal is taken.

Lycan v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-422, ¶ 21. The December 10, 2025 judgment

subject to this appeal did not address these issues. Thus, they will not be

addressed for the first time on appeal. Additionally, a review of the record shows

that the trial court held a hearing before the initial child support order. Brooks was

-9- Case No. 1-26-01

then given the opportunity to request hearings on all administrative reviews of

child support, taking advantage of that opportunity in 2025. As to the rest of the

allegations raised in this argument, the issue of garnishment, tax refunds and

passports are not part of the judgment from which the appeal was taken and are

not properly before this court. The second assignment of error is overruled.

Fraud and Constitution Conflict

{¶12} Brooks argues in the third assignment of error that there was extrinsic

fraud. His first claim is that since there was no paternity or support order at

initiation, he was denied a fair adjudication of jurisdiction and paternity. This claim

is false. There was a paternity finding and a support order. Both were agreed entries

signed by Brooks. No appeal was taken from these judgments. As these issues were

not raised in a timely appeal, they are bound by the doctrine of res judicata.

{¶13} Brooks second claim is that federal funding rewards collections under

federal law, thus incentivizing corrupt adjudication. The third claim is that he only

agreed to submit to the paternity test due to coercion. Brooks cites to no evidence

in the record and a review of the record shows there is no evidence to support either

of these claims. Although Brooks attached records and affidavits to his brief, they

were not part of the record. Items attached to an appellate brief which are not part

of the record will not be considered by the appellate court. State v. Booher, 54 Ohio

App.3d 1, 15 (3d Dist. 1988). Additionally, if there was any merit to them, the

claims should have been brought via appeal in 2011 when the initial determinations

-10- Case No. 1-26-01

were made. Since they were not timely raised, they are barred by the doctrine of res

judicata. Finally, the trial court did not address these claims in the judgment from

which the appeal is brought, so we will not address them for the first time on appeal.

The third assignment of error is overruled.

Constitutional Guarantees

{¶14} In the fourth assignment of error, Brooks claims that the Agency is

violating his constitutional rights and claims that the Agency, the clerk of court and

other agencies used their authority to enforce a “void child support scheme” in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Brooks’ brief, he does not cite to anything in the

record that supports his argument, only an affidavit attached to his brief. As

previously noted, items not part of the record may not be considered by this Court

even if they are attached to the brief. We also note that this claim raises a federal

law issue, not a state law issue. This Court is a state court and does not deal with

claims based solely on violation of federal law. Additionally, this issue was not

raised in or addressed by the trial court. Thus, this Court will not address it for the

first time on appeal. The fourth assignment of error is overruled.

Continued Enforcement

{¶15} In the fifth assignment of error, Brooks claims that the trial court and

other state actors violated his due process rights by continuing enforcement of the

child support order while the appeal was pending. This appeal is from the judgment

entry of December 10, 2025. None of the actions raised by Brooks in this

-11- Case No. 1-26-01

assignment of error were addressed by the trial court in that judgment entry, and

some occurred after that entry was filed. Thus, they are not before this court for

review.

{¶16} Even if the issues were reviewable, the enforcement of a child support

order while an appeal is pending is not prohibited by Ohio law. To the contrary,

Ohio law specifically provides that absent a stay and supersedeas bond, the trial

court retains jurisdiction to enforce child support orders during an appeal. R.C.

2505.09. In this case, Brooks repeatedly filed motions to stay the judgment. This

Court repeatedly denied the motions. As there was no stay obtained and no

supersedeas bond filed, the Agency was permitted, in fact required by Title IV-D of

the Social Security Act, to enforce the child support order. The fifth assignment of

{¶17} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County,

Domestic Relations Division is affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

-12- Case No. 1-26-01

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error

are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

John R. Willamowski, Judge

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

Juergen A. Waldick, Judge

DATED: /hls

-13-