2018 Ohio 2477
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Parties divorced in 2013; appellee (Bardall) was residential parent; appellant (Fisher) had supervised then progressively expanded visitation with goal of unsupervised overnight visits.
- February 12, 2016 order set a phased schedule increasing weekend/overnight parenting time and prohibited children from contacting appellee during visits or recording visits on cell phones.
- Disputes arose when the children (teens) repeatedly refused overnight stays and frequently texted appellee to be picked up; appellee testified she encouraged visits but could not force the children to stay.
- Appellant filed multiple contempt motions alleging appellee denied scheduled visitation; appellee filed motions including a request to prohibit stalking and to limit visits to two monthly dinner dates per GAL recommendation.
- Trial court interviewed the children, received GAL reports, adopted appellee’s proposed findings, denied contempt and stalking findings, declined to reallocate parental rights, and limited appellant’s parenting time to bi-monthly dinner dates plus one five-hour individual visit per month.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bardall) | Defendant's Argument (Fisher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee was in contempt for denying visitation | Appellee encouraged children to attend; she did not willfully deny visits | Appellant alleged multiple specific denials of ordered visitation and quantified missed hours | No contempt; credibility dispute and trial court discretion affirmed |
| Whether court should find stalking | GAL recommended restrictions; appellee sought prohibition | Appellant denied wrongdoing; claimed appellee interfered | No finding of stalking; court found both parties put children in middle |
| Whether visitation modification complied with R.C. 3109.051(D) | Court followed GAL recommendation and children’s expressed wishes | Appellant argued court failed to explicitly analyze statutory factors and abused discretion by reducing time | Modification affirmed; court adequately considered factors by adopting appellee’s findings and GAL report |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing discovery (Caldwell records & GAL reports) | Needed CALDWELL records and GAL reports for expert evaluation to present case and ensure due process | Appellee and GAL opposed release; trial court maintained confidentiality and relevance limits | Denial of subpoenas and GAL report release upheld; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 417 N.E.2d 1249 (Ohio 1981) (standard for appellate review of contempt rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion definition)
- In re Ayer, 119 Ohio App.3d 571, 695 N.E.2d 1180 (Ohio App. 1st Dist.) (trial court discretion to define contempt conduct)
- State ex rel. Turner v. Albin, 118 Ohio St. 527, 161 N.E. 792 (Ohio 1928) (inherent contempt authority of courts)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40, 706 N.E.2d 1218 (Ohio 1999) (R.C. 3109.051 governs visitation modification)