Condon v. Rockich
102 N.E.3d 1233
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Parents divorced in 2006 with a shared parenting plan; Mother relocated to New Jersey and later the children resided with Father by agreement for school years 2011–2013.
- Father sought reallocation of parental rights in Dec. 2012; magistrate issued a provisional order in Feb. 2013 designating Father the temporary residential parent while leaving the shared plan "in effect, except as modified."
- Protracted, contentious litigation ensued (GAL appointed, two custody evaluations, children had counsel); magistrate and evaluators largely recommended children remain with Father.
- In May 2016 the magistrate terminated the shared parenting plan, named Father sole residential parent and legal custodian, limited Mother to supervised visitation pending counseling, assessed child support, and imposed substantial sanctions; trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and increased sanctions.
- Mother appealed raising five assignments of error: admissibility of audio recordings, reliance on Father’s alleged temporary custody, gag order/limits on children’s testimony, contempt for attending events/liking social media, and failure to credit Mother’s health-insurance marginal cost in child support calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Condon) | Defendant's Argument (Rockich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admission/use of audio recordings at trial | Recordings were unauthenticated, hearsay, obtained without consent and prejudicial | Recordings were used largely for impeachment, parties had recordings, Mother admitted related facts at hearings | Majority of objections waived by failure to contemporaneously object; preserved objection harmless; assignment overruled |
| 2) Court relied on finding Father was temporary sole custodian to terminate shared parenting and sanction Mother | Trial court erroneously treated Father as sole custodian and punished Mother for taking children to appointments | Court relied on broader findings (alienation, noncompliance, evaluator/GAL recommendations, poor communication) as basis for termination/sanctions | Error in labeling temporary custodianship did not materially affect outcome; assignment overruled |
| 3) Gag order and limits on children’s testimony violated due process / interfered with children’s counsel | Verbal gag order was not journalized; limits prevented proper cross-examination and interfered with attorney–client relationship | Verbal court orders may support contempt; Mother failed to show prejudice or proffer excluded testimony | Gag order enforceable; Mother lacked standing on children’s counsel issue and failed to show due-process violation; assignment overruled |
| 4) Contempt finding for attending events and "liking" social media was error / against manifest weight | Passive acts (liking posts, attending events) were not communications and did not violate the June 2015 supervised-contact order | Mother hugged and spoke to children at an event and commented on a post; those acts reasonably constitute communication under the order | Trial court's contempt determination supported by record and not an abuse of discretion; assignment overruled |
| 5) Child support worksheet failed to credit Mother for marginal cost of health insurance | Feb. 2013 provisional order credited Mother $2,040 for health insurance and that credit should have been applied through 2014 and beyond | Mother failed to introduce evidence of her health-insurance costs at hearings; trial court lacked proof for 2015 onward | Sustained in part: court must recalculate child support for 2012–2014 to include $2,040 annual insurance credit; no error shown for 2015+ due to lack of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing weight of evidence in civil cases)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson, 126 Ohio St.3d 371 (Ohio 2010) (verbal disobedience of court orders can support contempt and disciplinary findings)