Girdlestone v. Girdlestone
2016 Ohio 8073
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stephen and Abigail Girdlestone divorced in 2013; the decree implemented a 50/50 shared parenting plan allocating decision-making between the parents and providing mediation through the guardian ad litem for unresolved disputes.
- Appellant (Stephen) alleged Abigail repeatedly failed to follow the plan (unauthorized medical/therapeutic visits, stopping allergy medication, failing to oversee homework, missing extracurricular/religious events) and moved (May 2015) to terminate or modify shared parenting or designate him residential parent; he also filed a contempt motion.
- A bench trial was held December 15–16, 2015; the guardian ad litem recommended terminating shared parenting and awarding custody to Stephen; a high-conflict counselor reported limited progress.
- The trial court found Abigail willfully in contempt for violating the decree, imposed a suspended jail sentence conditioned on payment of $7,500 in attorney fees and future compliance, ordered continued counseling and court-prescribed communication, and warned that continued conduct could lead to termination of parental rights; the court nevertheless declined to terminate or modify the shared parenting plan.
- Stephen appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing to terminate or modify shared parenting despite Abigail’s pattern of noncompliance and inflexibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to terminate or modify the shared parenting plan | Girdlestone: Mother’s repeated violations, inflexibility, and inattention constitute a change in circumstances and make termination/modification necessary for the children’s best interest | Abigail: Despite some noncompliance, children are overall healthy and doing well; shared parenting still serves children’s best interest and problems can be remedied without termination | Court: No abuse of discretion — court considered best-interest factors, found termination premature, imposed contempt sanctions and remediation measures instead |
| Whether the trial court needed to explicitly find a change in circumstances before denying modification | Girdlestone: Any implicit finding of no change in circumstances is an abuse of discretion | Abigail: Court sufficiently evaluated the situation under best-interest framework | Court: Declined to decide change-of-circumstances issue as academic; focused on best-interest analysis and outcome |
| Whether the guardian ad litem’s recommendation to terminate required the court to follow it | Girdlestone: GAL recommended termination; court should adopt recommendation | Abigail: Court not bound by GAL — must weigh all evidence | Court: GAL recommendation considered but not dispositive; court exercised discretion and chose remediation over termination |
| Whether harm/benefit balancing required termination | Girdlestone: Benefits of terminating outweigh harm to children | Abigail: Harm of disrupting shared parenting could outweigh benefits | Court: Did not reach the harm/advantage balancing because it concluded termination was not in children’s best interest at present |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (standard of review for appellate review of custody matters is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (trial courts have wide latitude in custody determinations)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 31 Ohio App.3d 254 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (trial court discretion in child welfare matters is especially important)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1952) (historical recognition of trial-court discretion in custody cases)