In re B.B.
2020 Ohio 4007
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Parents of B.B. (born July 21, 2012) disagreed about telephone contact during each other's parenting time.
- Juvenile court’s August 21, 2018 order (¶3(g)) required each parent to provide the other an opportunity for telephone communication with the child between 10:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. daily.
- Father filed a contempt motion (Dec. 12, 2018) alleging Mother refused to allow calls while the child was in Mother’s care. A hearing was held June 19, 2019.
- The juvenile court found Mother had substantially complied, noted Father had a generous in-person schedule and had engaged in repeated calling that led to a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) barring non‑emergency calls to Mother. The court denied contempt.
- The court also sua sponte deleted ¶3(g), reasoning removal was in the child’s best interest to minimize conflict and to leave the DVCPO intact. Father appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in denying Father’s contempt motion for violation of ¶3(g) | Mother willfully blocked calls (admitted blocking on Oct. 4, 2018), denying Father his court-ordered opportunity to speak with B.B. | Mother substantially complied; she blocked only after repeated harassment; DVCPO limited Father’s non‑emergency calls | Court: Denial affirmed — Father failed to prove willful, unjustified violation; substantial compliance and DVCPO justified Mother’s conduct |
| Whether the court erred by sua sponte deleting ¶3(g) from the August 21, 2018 order | Deletion was improper because Father received no notice and had no opportunity to present evidence to preserve daily phone-contact provision | Court has continuing jurisdiction and duty to act in child’s best interest; removing ¶3(g) reduces conflict and preserves DVCPO protections | Court: Affirmed — sua sponte deletion was within the juvenile court’s authority and was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Kelm v. Kelm, 92 Ohio St.3d 223 (2001) (custody and visitation focus on child’s best interest rather than parental rights)
- Thornton v. Thornton, 70 Ohio App.3d 317 (1990) (child’s best interest is the paramount consideration)