Faulks v. Flynn
2014 Ohio 1610
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Tracie Faulks and William Flynn were divorced in 2003; the trial court adopted a shared parenting plan making Faulks residential parent for school purposes.
- Over time the parties disputed parenting time; entries in 2008 and 2010 modified parenting time and in 2008 the court permitted Faulks to relocate to Florida and awarded Flynn parenting time under Scioto Loc.R. 6.0.
- Faulks moved repeatedly (five moves since 2008) and the child changed schools multiple times and had academic/behavioral issues including an ADHD diagnosis and medication changes.
- In August 2012 Flynn filed a motion to modify custody; after a magistrate hearing in March 2013, the magistrate recommended terminating the shared parenting plan, naming Flynn legal custodian/residential parent, and awarding Faulks visitation under Loc.R. 6.0.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; Faulks filed objections but did not raise several of the arguments she now presses on appeal. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by terminating the shared parenting plan instead of treating Flynn’s filing as a motion to modify custody requiring a change-of-circumstances standard | Faulks: a 2008 entry constructively terminated the 2003 shared-parenting decree and therefore the court should have applied a change-in-circumstances standard | Flynn: shared parenting remained in effect; trial court properly applied best-interests analysis and could terminate under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) | Court: Faulks forfeited/waived this argument by not raising it below and did not show plain error; termination under best-interests was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court failed to perform an independent de novo review of the magistrate’s decision after timely objections | Faulks: trial court’s order language and adoption of the magistrate suggest lack of independent scrutiny | Flynn: trial court expressly reviewed objections and transcript; presumption of regularity applies | Court: Faulks failed to rebut presumption; record supports independent review |
| Whether Scioto Loc.R. 6.0 is unconstitutional as applied to parents living in different states | Faulks: Loc.R. 6.0’s standard schedule is burdensome and infringes parental rights for out-of-state parents | Flynn: Loc.R. 6.0 is a local rule; parties may agree to other arrangements | Court: Faulks failed to raise the constitutional claim below (forfeiture); not considered on appeal |
| Whether the evidence supported naming Flynn residential parent and terminating shared parenting | Faulks: argued procedural and standard issues rather than contesting factual findings | Flynn: presented school records, stability concerns, and evidence of Faulks’s relocations | Court: Evidence (moves, school instability, behavioral/academic problems) supported termination and appointment of Flynn; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals is disfavored and applies only in exceptional circumstances)
- State ex rel. Muhammad v. State, 133 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2012) (procedural requirement to object to a magistrate’s decision preserves issues for appeal)
- State ex rel. Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 (Ohio 2002) (invited-error doctrine: party cannot complain of error it induced)
- State v. Rohrbaugh, 126 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2010) (plain-error may be waived where error was invited)
- Myers v. Myers, 153 Ohio App.3d 243 (Ohio App. 2003) (trial court may terminate shared parenting under best-interests standard)
- State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2012) (presumption of regularity attaches to judicial proceedings; burden on appellant to rebut)