Denier v. Carnes-Denier
2016 Ohio 4998
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Parents Charles (Father) and Carrie Carnes-Denier (Mother) divorced in 2014; they have three children: Ch.D. (13), Co.D. (11), and Ca.D. (5).
- Mother was originally named residential parent; the parties have a strained relationship and the court found Mother in contempt for interfering with reunification efforts.
- Older children were resistant to contact with Father; two younger children (Co.D. and Ca.D.) have diagnoses of Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD) requiring accommodations.
- Father moved for custody and shared parenting; Mother moved to terminate Father's visitation; a magistrate held a hearing and recommended a shared parenting plan.
- The magistrate/ trial court awarded shared parenting, named Father residential parent for the youngest child (Ca.D.) and gave Father responsibility for medical decisions; the GAL had recommended shared parenting and gradual reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of interim order being automatically renewable | N/A (Father sought final relief via magistrate decision) | The interim order was erroneous because it was automatically renewable | Moot — interim-order challenge dismissed because final judgment superseded interim orders |
| Whether shared parenting is supported by evidence | Shared parenting serves children's best interests given GAL recommendation and Father's demonstrated suitability | Shared parenting was improper: parents cannot cooperate, live 90+ miles apart, history of abuse; abrupt change for Ca.D. harmful | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; decision supported by substantial competent evidence |
| Naming Father responsible for Ca.D.’s medical decisions | Father is appropriate and knowledgeable about SPD and health needs | Trial court erred in removing Mother's medical decision authority; against the weight of evidence | Affirmed — assignment overruled as part of weight-of-evidence review supporting shared parenting |
| Statement that Children’s Services may be needed if reunification fails | Court may consider protective interventions if no progress | Statement was legally improper / speculative | Not ripe — appellate review dismissed as issue is hypothetical pending future developments |
| Trial court’s extent of questioning witness (Mother) | Court’s questioning was impartial and aimed at clarification; permitted by Evid.R. 614(B) | Excessive questioning showed bias and prejudiced Mother’s testimony | No error — questioning was impartial; no showing of bias and no contemporaneous objection preserved only plain error (none shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (custody awards supported by substantial competent evidence will not be reversed on weight-of-evidence grounds)
- Hamilton v. Clemans, 121 Ohio App.3d 337 (12th Dist. 1997) (trial court questioning of witnesses reviewed for abuse of discretion)