Cottrell v. Cottrell
2013 Ohio 2397
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Father and Mother were awarded a shared parenting plan after a 2011 divorce, with Alan, born June 19, 1996, to have equal weekly parenting time.
- By late 2011 Alan began refusing to attend Father’s visits, expressing a desire to reside with Mother instead.
- Mother filed December 2011 to modify custody to sole custody with Father’s standard visitation; a mediator recommended baby steps to repair the relationship.
- A magistrate (May–July 2012) recommended termination of the shared plan, sole custody to Mother, and Father’s child support of $580.50/month; no contempt against Mother.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s recommendations in October 2012; Father appeals raising seven assignments of error.
- Key factual dispute centers on Alan’s wishes, his relationship with Father, and whether continued shared parenting serves his best interests under RC 3109.04.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for interfering with parenting time | Father asserts Mother impeded Alan’s visits with him. | Mother contends she encouraged visits and Alan’s refusals were not caused by interference. | No abuse of discretion; no contempt finding against Mother. |
| Modification and best interests | Continued shared parenting should remain; Father argues best interests favor continued visitation and shared plan. | Best interests favor sole custody to Mother given Alan’s wishes and alienation from Father. | Trial court’s sole custody award to Mother not against the manifest weight; best interests upheld. |
| Constitutional due process (Basic Parenting Schedule for teens) | Basic Parenting Schedule limits Father’s rights and violates due process/equal protection. | Schedule applies to older teens and respects parental rights; trial court should address arguments. | Assignment sustained; remanded to address substantive due process in light of Teen Schedule. |
| Child support deviation and start date | Court should deviate from Ohio guidelines; start date of support should be contested. | Arguments were too vague/broad under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii) and lacked proper basis for deviation. | Objections insufficiently specific; trial court’s child support ruling not reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spickler v. Spickler, 2003-Ohio-3553 (Ohio 2003) (contempt standard and requirements for enforcing visitation)
- Forney v. Forney, 2012-Ohio-3427 (Ohio 2012) (custody discretion and best-interest review in split parenting)
- Valentine v. Valentine, 2005-Ohio-6163 (Ohio 2005) (best interests framework for custody determinations)
- Kenney v. Kenney, 2004-Ohio-3912 (Ohio 2004) (weight given to child’s wishes in custody cases)
- In re R.A.S., 2012-Ohio-2260 (Ohio 2012) (requirements for modifying custody after change in circumstances)
- In re C.P., 2005-Ohio-3888 (Ohio 2005) (visitation rights and custodial responsibilities where harm is alleged)