In re A.P.D.
2014 Ohio 1632
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Shared parenting plan for A.P.D. in place since 2010 and modified in 2012.
- Father moved Jan 10, 2013 to terminate the plan and obtain sole custody, alleging communication failures, medical scheduling issues, and maternal alcohol history.
- Mother filed Mar 29, 2013 to modify parental rights, seek residential parent status for school, and request a parenting coordinator.
- Trial held May 2013 with testimony from Father, Mother, a social worker, and a guardian ad litem; July 5, 2013 order terminated the shared plan and named Father legal custodian and residential parent; visitation plan to be set.
- August 26, 2013 child support hearing occurred; September 9, 2013 visitation order issued; Mother appealed four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination of shared plan and custody award | Mother argues termination was an abuse of discretion. | Father contends termination in child’s best interest due to ongoing conflict and noncompliance by Mother. | No abuse; termination affirmed as in child’s best interest. |
| Admission of GAL testimony without written report | Mother asserts GAL violated Sup.R. 48 and Loc.Juv.R. 20 by not filing a written report. | Father and court validly admitted GAL testimony as a factor under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(e). | Admissible; guidelines not controlling here; written report not required for this case. |
| GAL interviewing the child | Mother argues GAL should have interviewed A.P.D. per Sup.R. 48(D)(13)(a). | GAL explained interviewing an extreme case, interviews deemed impracticable; discretion to forgo interview. | Not error; interviewing child not required given circumstances and discretion to deviate from guidelines. |
| Admission of social worker Curtiss’s testimony | Mother argues Curtiss’s statements were expert opinion and improperly admitted. | Curtiss’s testimony was based on investigation and personal observations, not expert opinion. | Properly admitted as non-expert, based on personal observations and investigation. |
| Visitation order without a hearing | Mother contends the visitation plan was issued without evidentiary hearing. | Record shows hearing evidence and GAL-supported proposals; court adequately considered arguments. | Visitation order affirmed; no error in process. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98384, 2012-Ohio-5078 (Ohio 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for best-interest determinations in custody cases)
- In re D.J.R., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96792, 2012-Ohio-698 (Ohio 2012) (guidelines vs. statutory discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard in parenting decisions)
- State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 362 N.E.2d 1216 (1977) (policies guiding rules of superintendence in court procedures)
- In re T.F., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 91438 and 91472, 2008-Ohio-6652 (Ohio 2008) (local rules and GAL reporting considerations in juvenile matters)
- In re D.C.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97681 and 97776, 2012-Ohio-4154 (Ohio 2012) (local rules enforcement and GAL reporting in family matters)
- Allen v. Allen, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2009-T-0070, 2010-Ohio-475 (Ohio 2010) (case law on parenting decisions and discretion)
- In re K.G., 9th Dist. Wayne No. 10CA16, 2010-Ohio-4399 (Ohio 2010) (analysis of best-interest and custody allocation standards)
- State v. Gettys, 49 Ohio App.2d 241, 360 N.E.2d 735 (1976) (precedent on enforceability of superintendence rules)