In re S.S.
2023 Ohio 245
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In June 2017 both parents of S.S. were found unsuitable; maternal grandmother (MGM) was named sole legal and physical custodian and paternal grandmother (PGM) was granted court-ordered visitation (with alternating summer weeks).
- PGM filed a contempt motion in April 2020 alleging MGM refused court-ordered visitation beginning February 2020 because of COVID-19; PGM also sought attorney fees and compensatory visitation.
- A magistrate heard the matter in July 2020 and, in December 2020, denied the contempt motion and attorney fees but awarded some compensatory visitation; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- PGM filed extensive objections (73 in total, including a supplemental filing). The trial court reviewed the record, overruled the objections, and entered judgment on May 26, 2021. PGM appealed.
- The appellate court first addressed standing sua sponte and held PGM had standing to appeal because a contempt finding would have required award of fees/costs under R.C. 3109.051(K); the court reviewed the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate’s denial of PGM’s contempt motion | PGM: MGM denied court-ordered visitation and the court should have found contempt. | MGM/court: MGM’s withholding was justified by COVID-19 safety concerns; contempt is discretionary and PGM failed to prove clear and convincing evidence. | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court reasonably found MGM justified in protecting child’s health. |
| 2. Whether attorney’s fees, court costs, and compensatory visitation should have been awarded | PGM: R.C. 3109.051(K) mandates fees/costs and allows compensatory visitation when contempt is found. | MGM/court: No contempt finding was made, so statutory relief (fees/costs) was not triggered. | Affirmed — no award because relief under R.C. 3109.051(K) is contingent on a contempt finding. |
| 3. Whether Ohio Civ.R. discovery rules apply in juvenile contempt/juvenile proceedings | PGM: Civ.R. (discovery) applies to parentage/post-decree contempt matters; Civ.R. and Juv.R. interplay favors Civ.R. | MGM/court: Juvenile rules govern; contempt is a collateral/special statutory proceeding and Civ.R. is inapplicable where clearly inapplicable. | Affirmed — Civ.R. discovery provisions did not control; juvenile and special-proceeding rules apply. |
| 4. Evidentiary rulings (admission of medical records, post-hearing statements, hearsay, exclusion of cross-questioning, judicial notice) | PGM: Court admitted inadmissible hearsay, relied on post-hearing remarks, prevented full cross-examination, and took overly broad judicial notice — causing prejudice. | MGM/court: Many objections were forfeited for lack of contemporaneous objection or specificity; trial court found no prejudicial error and any error was harmless. | Affirmed — objections were generally forfeited or insufficiently developed; trial court did not abuse discretion or show prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (1991) (recognizing value of grandparent-grandchild relationships)
- In re H.W., 114 Ohio St.3d 65 (2007) (juvenile-court procedures and application of civil rules except when clearly inapplicable)
- Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (contempt appeals premised on actual contempt findings and prejudice analysis)
- Internatl. Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (distinction between civil and criminal contempt; standards of proof)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (review limits and deference to trial court factfinding)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (standard for clear and convincing proof)
- Rowell v. Smith, 133 Ohio St.3d 288 (2012) (scope of juvenile rule exceptions to Civ.R.)
- State ex rel. Fowler v. Smith, 68 Ohio St.3d 357 (1994) (juvenile proceedings regarded as special statutory proceedings)
- State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122 (contempt as collateral/special proceeding)
- In re Yeauger, 83 Ohio App.3d 493 (1992) (contempt proceedings exempt from Civ.R. as special proceedings)