2013 Ohio 1689
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Bucci and Atwell divorced in 2005; Atwell was designated residential parent of their daughter.
- Both parties are in the U.S. Air Force and have lived apart, yielding irregular, extended visitation for Bucci.
- In 2012, Atwell moved toward relocation to Colorado with her new husband, who would be deployed to Germany.
- Bucci alleged he was denied parenting time during Christmas 2005, 2007, 2009 and summer 2010.
- A June 2012 hearing showed regular visitation but flexible deviations to accommodate family events.
- The October 15, 2012 judgment found Atwell in contempt for phone contact issues and ordered fees, but this was later appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for telephone contact—was there a valid order? | Bucci contends Atwell violated a court order by limiting calls. | Atwell argues no explicit order to facilitate telephone contact existed. | Contempt reversed; no order supporting contempt. |
| Divorce decree—did it address telephone contact duties? | Bucci relies on implied duties from parenting guidelines. | Divorce decree/guidelines did not impose a telephone-contact duty. | No duty to facilitate telephone contact found in decree. |
| Notice for indirect contempt—was proper notice given? | Bucci's motion sought contempt for visitation, not phone contact. | Atwell argues improper notice for contempt. | Notice defective; contempt improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Ryan, 2003-Ohio-2087 (Ohio 2d Dist. Greene 2003) (contempt requires a cognizable order and proper due process)
- South Euclid Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 80 v. D’Amico, 29 Ohio St.3d 50 (Ohio 1987) (necessity of due process and written contempt charge)
- Hillman v. Edwards, 2011-Ohio-2677 (Ohio 10th Dist.) (due process protections for indirect contempt)
- Courtney v. Courtney, 16 Ohio App.3d 329 (Ohio 3d Dist. 1984) (due process requirements for contempt proceedings)