Cain v. Cain
2017 Ohio 708
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Julie M. Cain and John A. Cain separated before the birth of their child (Emily, b. 2009); final divorce decree (May 2011) named Julie sole residential parent with John supervised visitation by paternal grandmother Lynne Benek.
- Julie later lived with boyfriend Steven Haviland; incidents (disorderly conduct, domestic violence) and a September 2014 agreed order prohibited Haviland from contacting the child.
- Julie married Haviland in March 2015 and cohabited with him and the child; Benek filed emergency motion and was granted temporary legal custody (April 2015), after which Benek intervened and sought permanent custody.
- At final hearing, evidence showed Benek provided a stable home during custody period; evidence also showed Julie provided a stable, loving home when living with her parents and had separated from Haviland after a later domestic violence incident.
- Trial court concluded Julie was not an unfit parent, returned legal custody to Julie conditioned on her continuing to live with her parents, and preserved supervised visitation by Benek and John.
- Benek appealed, arguing contempt rulings should have been sustained, certain evidence (a video) was excluded, Julie was unsuitable due to her conduct with Haviland, and standard parenting time should have been ordered; the court affirmed. Justice Grendell dissented, arguing the record supported parental unsuitability and Benek’s continued custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Benek) | Defendant's Argument (Cain) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benek can appeal contempt rulings enforcing prior visitation and no-contact orders | Contempt motions reflected a pattern harming child; court should enforce and consider in best-interest analysis | Contempt motions were John’s claims; disposition does not affect Benek’s custody rights | Benek lacks standing to challenge contempt rulings brought solely by John; those issues not reviewable by her on appeal |
| Whether Benek can challenge trial court’s visitation allocation (standard parenting time for John) | Trial court erred by not ordering standard parenting time for John, affecting child’s best interests | Visitation order allocation pertains to John’s rights, not prejudicial to Benek’s own rights | Benek lacks standing to challenge the scope of John’s visitation when alleged error does not prejudice her rights |
| Admissibility of cell-phone video of a soccer-practice confrontation | Video would show Julie/Haviland escalated the incident and bear on fitness; exclusion was erroneous | Court allowed full description and Benek declined to proffer content at trial; logistical issue (no video player) | No reversible error: appellant failed to preserve/proffer video content at trial, so appellate court cannot assess prejudice |
| Whether trial court erred in returning custody to Julie (parental suitability) | Julie’s cohabitation and marriage to Haviland, violations of court orders, and interference with father’s visitation show unsuitability; grandmother’s custody is in child’s best interest | Julie provided a stable, nurturing home when living with her parents; she ceased contact with Haviland and planned divorce; parental right is presumptively superior absent unsuitability | Trial court reasonably found Julie not unsuitable, conditioned custody on residing with her parents; parental right prevailed over grandparent’s custody claim (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Baker, 113 Ohio App.3d 805 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discusses parent’s fundamental right and higher standard when non-parent seeks custody)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (parents’ due-process interest in custody decisions)
- Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 191 Ohio App.3d 518 (Ohio Ct. App.) (pattern of withholding visitation can show detrimental effect supporting non-parent custody)
- State v. Mulhollen, 119 Ohio App.3d 560 (Ohio Ct. App.) (appellate review limited to evidence presented to trial court; new evidence not considered)