Geary v. Geary
27 N.E.3d 877
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Geary v. Geary is a civil domestic-relations appeal from Delaware County, Ohio, challenging contempt rulings and a termination of child support following a custody modification dispute; three children were involved (S.G., J.G., J.G.).
- Motions were filed 2010–2013 addressing modification, reallocation of parental rights, GAL appointment, and alleged contempt; a CPO petition was filed in Perry County in 2011 listing children as protected parties, later vacated in 2013.
- Lammon served as guardian ad litem and filed reports describing parental alienation and concerns about compliance with court orders; the GAL's involvement continued through 2012.
- A May 2, 2011 magistrate decision granted appellee extended visitation and imposed a no-contact order for Caudill; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- The trial court, in April 2014, entered findings of contempt (civil and criminal) and terminated child support for S.G. in 2013, awarding various attorney-fee awards, and remanded/affirmed in part; the court’s criminal-contempt holding was reversed for lack of due process, and the first assignment of error regarding termination of child support was sustained.
- The court affirmed in part and remanded in part the judgment entries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether terminating child support complied with due process. | Geary asserts inadequate notice to modify/terminate support for two younger children. | Geary contends modification based on statutory grounds was proper despite limited notice. | Due process failure: sua sponte modification for two children lacked notice. |
| Civil contempt—failure to notify CSEA of S.G.’s withdrawal from college. | Geary failed to notify CSEA; argues no statutory duty. | Appellee had duty as residential parent to notify; fault lay with Geary. | Civil contempt sustained for failure to notify under RC 3119.87. |
| Criminal contempt—summary punishment without notice/hearing. | Criminal contempt imposed without proper notice and opportunity to present witnesses. | Lying under oath justified criminal contempt as direct contempt. | Criminal contempt sanction improper; due process requires notice/hearing. |
| Collateral estoppel to relitigate Perry County CPOs. | CPOs preclude re-litigation of issues. | Civil protection orders were not actually litigated in prior action; evidence relevant to credibility. | Collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Admission and consideration of parental-alienation evidence. | Ali enation evidence not authorized by RC 2705.031(B). | Alienation findings were supplement to willful denial of parenting time. | Evidence properly considered; alienation finding supported and not error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 55 Ohio App.3d 196 (8th Dist. 1998) (due-process notice and modification of support in domestic relations)
- New Winchester Gardens, Ltd. v. Franklin Co. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St.3d 36 (1997-Ohio-360) (collateral estoppel requires actual, direct litigation of the issue)
- Fort Frye Teachers Assn v. State Emp. Rels. Bd., 81 Ohio St.3d 392 (1998) (test for collateral estoppel in administrative/agency actions)
- State ex rel. Celebreeze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69 (1991) (standards for abuse of discretion and contempt procedures)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (clear-and-convincing standard; credibility assessments)