2018 Ohio 3010
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Debra (Wiest) and Richard Carmosino divorced in 2011; Debra is residential parent, Richard was awarded parenting time per the court's standard schedule.
- Significant post-decree conflict arose; Richard filed a contempt motion alleging Debra denied his parenting time with their son C.C. between March 2 and June 1, 2017.
- At an August 25, 2017 magistrate hearing, testimony included Debra, Richard, and the child’s counselor, Gene Colina. The magistrate found Debra in contempt and ordered her to pay $500 toward Richard’s attorney fees plus outstanding court costs.
- Debra objected, arguing the trial court’s earlier order required both parents to follow the child’s counselor’s recommendations (Colina had advised not to “force” the child to visit), and that enforcing parenting time would harm the child.
- The trial court overruled Debra’s objections, finding Colina’s testimony did not justify overriding the court’s parenting-time order and that evidence did not show C.C. would suffer physical or mental harm from parenting time.
- Debra appealed; the appellate court affirmed both the contempt finding and the $500 attorney-fee/costs order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Debra was properly held in civil contempt for denying standard parenting time | Debra relied on counselor Colina’s recommendation not to force C.C. to attend; the trial-court order required following counselor recommendations, so she had justification | Richard argued the court’s standard parenting-time order controlled and Debra could not unilaterally refuse visits based on the counselor’s advice | Affirmed — contempt finding proper; counselor’s recommendations did not supplant the court’s parenting-time order and Debra had no unilateral authority to modify it |
| Whether evidence showed parenting time would cause physical or mental harm to the child | Debra asserted record evidence (including her testimony and counselor input) showed C.C.’s anxiety and potential harm, justifying refusal of visits | Richard argued the evidence did not prove harm; weight/credibility favored enforcement of parenting time | Affirmed — trial court reasonably discredited or gave little weight to evidence of harm and found no showing of physical/mental harm |
| Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees and costs to Richard | Debra contested the fee/cost award as improper | Richard sought reasonable fees/costs as punishment for contempt; court relied on local rules and R.C. 3109.051(K) factors | Affirmed — $500 fee award and costs were proper and within discretion |
| Standard of review for contempt and fee rulings | Debra argued errors of law/abuse of discretion | Richard argued appellate review should defer to trial court credibility and discretion | Affirmed — contempt and fee orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; none shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (establishes that contempt need not be intentional to be found)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- AAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (discusses when a decision is unreasonable and lacks sound reasoning)