In re T.M.M.
102 N.E.3d 558
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents of two children (born 2002 and 2004) had prior agreed entries setting father’s parenting time (every-other-weekend plus midweek variations); mother lived with children and boyfriend; father lived ~45 minutes from children’s school.
- Beginning 2015–2016 Child B (younger child) began refusing visits with father; mother testified she encouraged visits and sought police help but could not force child to go.
- Father filed cross-motions in Sept–Nov 2016: (1) for shared parenting (alternating weeks) and modification of support; (2) to hold mother in contempt for interfering with parenting time. Mother sought elimination of midweek visit.
- Magistrate held in-camera interviews, guardian ad litem attempted to mediate; GAL did not believe mother unduly influenced Child B and recommended retaining current schedule. Magistrate (adopted by trial court) denied shared parenting and denied contempt motions; kept mother as residential parent.
- Father objected, arguing (inter alia) the court effectively terminated his parenting time with Child B by failing to order remedies (counseling, assessment, supervised visitation) and erred in findings about changed circumstances and best interests. Trial court overruled objections; appeals court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother should be held in contempt for Child B’s refusal to visit | Father: mother willfully withheld/ prevented parenting time and should be held in contempt | Mother: she encouraged visits, pleaded with child, tried law enforcement, and did not improperly influence him | Court: no abuse of discretion; credibility of mother supported the finding and contempt not warranted |
| Whether magistrate/ court had to disclose or detail in-camera interview findings about why Child B refused | Father: court should state specific reasons learned in camera | Mother/GAL: in-camera interviews are confidential; court can summarize child’s expressed preference without detailing reasons | Court: magistrate properly preserved confidentiality and sufficiently recorded the child’s wish to remain with mother; no error in not detailing reasons |
| Whether there was a change of circumstances justifying reallocation to shared parenting | Father: Child B’s prolonged refusal to visit and father’s new work flexibility constitute changed circumstances | Mother: current arrangement serves children’s best interests; shared parenting impractical given parental conflict and geography | Court: alternative holdings—even if change existed, shared parenting is not in children’s best interests; denial of shared parenting not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court abused discretion by not ordering assessment/counseling or other remedial relief to restore visits (and thereby effectively terminating visitation) | Father: court should have ordered evaluation, reconciliation counseling, or supervised visitation to prevent de facto termination of his parenting time | Mother: father never filed a specific motion seeking those remedies prior to trial; court addressed the motions before it and denied them; father can move separately for services | Court: no abuse—father did not request a specific pretrial evaluation or formal motion for counseling; court was not required to order such relief sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations in custody matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (abuse of discretion as unsupportable by sound reasoning)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69 (Ohio 1991) (contempt review standard)
- Donovan v. Donovan, 110 Ohio App.3d 615 (Ohio App. 1996) (in-camera interview findings: court not required to issue detailed findings unless it declines to determine child’s wishes)
- Myers v. Myers, 170 Ohio App.3d 436 (Ohio App. 2007) (confidentiality of in-camera interviews and sealing transcripts)
- Stone v. Stone, 9 Ohio App.3d 6 (Ohio 1983) (statutory provision for psychological evaluations is advisory, not mandatory)