2014 Ohio 2713
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents (Father Richard J. and Mother Kelly S.) share a child, C.E.J., born March 13, 2007; divorce and shared parenting plan from 2009.
- Child made allegations of sexual/physical abuse by Mother's boyfriend, Ryan Beckman, in Jan. 2011 and again in Dec. 2011; BCCS investigated but did not pursue ongoing services after the second report; psychological evaluation found allegations inconsistent/unfounded.
- Father filed an abuse/dependency complaint and emergency order barring contact with Beckman; case adjudicated dependent by agreement on June 1, 2011; parties later sought legal custody.
- Anne Lucas served as both guardian ad litem (GAL) and counsel for the child; Father moved to disqualify Lucas as GAL (but allow her to remain as counsel), alleging conflict because child’s wishes conflicted with Lucas’s recommendation; trial court denied the motion.
- Trial court named Mother residential parent and awarded Father 14 days/month companionship; the court’s final entry included non-specific child-support/attendant provisions; Father appealed as to GAL conflict and lack of specificity on support/related orders.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the GAL/attorney Lucas should be disqualified as GAL because her recommendation conflicted with the child’s wishes | Lucas should be disqualified as GAL (but may remain as child’s attorney) because child “consistently and repeatedly” wanted to live with Father, creating a conflict | Lucas’s dual role is permissible absent a true conflict; child was young and did not consistently express one position | Trial court did not err; no conflict requiring separate counsel given child’s age, inconsistent wishes, and GAL’s familiarity with case |
| Whether the trial court’s final order sufficiently addressed child-support, visitation schedule, tax exemption, and health insurance responsibilities | Trial court’s order lacked required specificity on child support worksheet, visitation schedule, tax exemption, and insurance; remand needed for clear orders | Court should specify those duties consistent with statutory requirements | Trial court’s disposition affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded to enter specific orders consistent with R.C. provisions (child support worksheet and allocation of tax exemption/insurance/visitation specifics) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St.3d 229 (discussing distinction between guardian ad litem’s role and counsel’s role)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (holding appointment of separate counsel required when GAL’s recommendation conflicts with child's expressed wishes)