2023 Ohio 1671
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Parties married in 2004; three children (2010, 2012, 2014). Family principally lived in Virginia; lived temporarily in Shaker Heights, Ohio in 2019–2020.
- In September 2020 A.Y. was hospitalized for medical/mental-health evaluation; thereafter she left the marital home and sought shelter.
- On October 10, 2020 E.Y. moved the children to Virginia without A.Y.’s consent; A.Y. had little or no contact with the children from Oct 2020–June 2021.
- Interim parenting plan entered June 7, 2021; trial took place March–April 2022. Disputed facts included the children’s alleged chronic conditions (MCAS/allergies), parental mental-health credibility, and whether the children should remain in Virginia.
- Trial court designated E.Y. residential parent and legal custodian, ordered withholding for support, and required both parties to provide residential addresses; A.Y. appealed raising three assignments of error.
- Appellate court affirmed the custody and address rulings, rejected the bond argument on the merits, but remanded for a limited correction of conflicting language regarding E.Y.’s attachable income/need to post a bond.
Issues
| Issue | A.Y.'s Argument | E.Y.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in naming E.Y. residential parent/legal custodian | Court should have awarded residential custody to A.Y.; record supports A.Y.; court misstated expert testimony and did not resolve credibility properly | Trial court acted within discretion after weighing R.C. 3109.04(F) factors, credibility, GAL input, medical records, and children’s adjustment in Virginia | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court implicitly found E.Y. more credible and relied on medical records, GAL testimony, and best-interest factors |
| Whether court erred by requiring A.Y. to provide a residential address while enrolled in Ohio Safe at Home Program | Order violated Safe at Home protections; court should use designated program address rather than actual residence | Court can rely on Safe at Home mailing address to satisfy notice; withholding and support administration require an address for service/payment | Affirmed — court complied by listing A.Y.’s Safe at Home mailing address as residential address and may provide that to agencies |
| Whether court should have required E.Y. to post a bond or made a withholding order for collection of support | Court should have required bond/other security per R.C. 3121.03 because E.Y. allegedly had no attachable income/assets | Withholding order was entered to collect support; bond is unnecessary where withholding suffices | Substantively overruled — withholding order was appropriate; however, remanded to correct inadvertent, conflicting language in the judgment that stated E.Y. had no attachable income and no assets to post a bond |
Key Cases Cited
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83 (trial judge best positioned to determine witness credibility)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (trial court’s advantage in assessing demeanor and credibility)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (competent, credible evidence standard for custody awards)
- In re L.S., 152 Ohio App.3d 500 (review of custody awards and deference to trial court)
- Szymczak v. Szymczak, 136 Ohio App.3d 706 (bond sometimes required where withholding is impracticable)
- Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 (recent articulation of abuse-of-discretion standard)