In re G.M.
2017 Ohio 8145
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (Heather Morgan) designated residential parent; father (Benjamin Ward) had visitation every other week: Thursday 6:00 p.m. to following Tuesday 3:30 p.m.
- Mother enrolled child in five‑day preschool and began refusing father's five‑day, weekday visitation, proposing alternate every‑other‑weekend visitation instead.
- Father sought contempt and requested reallocation of custodial rights; magistrate initially denied contempt and reallocation but modified visitation to two weekends per month during school year.
- Trial court remanded contempt issue after finding mother admitted noncompliance; magistrate later found mother in contempt, imposed 30 days jail with purge option tied to make‑up visitation; trial court affirmed.
- Mother appealed, arguing her custodial authority to decide schooling permitted altering visitation without court order and that she had offered a reasonable alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custodial parent may unilaterally alter court‑ordered visitation to accommodate preschool | As residential parent, she had authority over schooling and offered an alternate schedule (every other weekend) in good faith | Visitation rights are court‑ordered and cannot be unilaterally changed by custodial parent; father sought enforcement of existing order | Court held custodial rights to schooling do not permit unilateral modification of visitation; mother was in contempt for violating the order |
| Whether contempt requires intentional/knowing violation | Mother argued her actions were in good faith and she did not intend contempt because she prioritized child's schooling and offered alternatives | Father argued disobedience of a court order (intentional or not) supports contempt; sought sanctions and make‑up visitation | Court applied civil contempt standard: intent unnecessary; contempt may be found on clear and convincing evidence of disobedience; court affirmed contempt finding and sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Zakany v. Zakany, 9 Ohio St.3d 192 (1984) (discusses court authority to punish contempt)
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (1984) (civ. contempt may be found without proof of intentional violation)
- Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971) (establishes that innocent conduct is not a defense to contempt)
- Dozer v. Dozer, 88 Ohio App.3d 296 (1993) (standard that contempt findings require clear and convincing evidence)
- ConTex, Inc. v. Consol. Technologies, Inc., 40 Ohio App.3d 94 (1988) (civil contempt findings must be based on clear and convincing proof)