Johnson v. Ulmer
2013 Ohio 4240
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Brittany Johnson appeals a February 13, 2013 juvenile-court contempt judgment regarding Ulmer’s parenting time and child support.
- The court found Johnson in contempt for obstructing Ulmer’s weekend visitation and for withholding summer visitations.
- Ulmer was found in contempt for allowing A.J. to be with his stepfather, Lester Allen, though A.J. had not been harmed by Ulmer’s care and Ulmer planned future compliance with the order.
- Ulmer faced unemployment, arrears of $2,600, and the court required him to apply to three jobs every two weeks while paying attention to his child-support obligations.
- The court denied Johnson’s request for supervised visitation and denied Ulmer’s request to expand visitation; both parties were sanctioned with jail time, suspended upon future compliance with the parenting-order.
- Johnson admitted withholding visitation after seeing a photo of A.J. with Allen, asserting protection of the child; Ulmer admitted some prior violations and testified about the visitation arrangement and safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding Johnson in contempt? | Johnson contends extraordinary circumstances justified withholding visitation to protect A.J. | Ulmer argues Johnson repeatedly violated a court order and endangered compliance. | No abuse of discretion; Johnson’s ongoing violations supported contempt. |
| Was there an abuse of discretion in denying supervised visitation for Ulmer? | Johnson argues factors under RC 3109.051(D) show need for supervision due to safety concerns. | Ulmer asserts no evidence of harm and that court reasonably refused supervision. | No abuse of discretion; no evidence of harm under supervision factors. |
| Did the court err in not finding Ulmer in contempt for unpaid child support? | Johnson asserts failure to pay supports a contempt finding. | Ulmer maintains unemployment and efforts to obtain work; payment obligations acknowledged. | No abuse of discretion; court considered real inability to pay and ordered job-search efforts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chavez-Juarez, 185 Ohio App.3d 189 (2d Dist. 2009) (civil vs. criminal contempt framework and burden on movant)
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1984) (contempt standard requires proof of order and noncompliance; inability to pay defenses)
- Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (Ohio 1980) (sustainability of contempt under noncompliance; standard of proof)
- Rinehart v. Rinehart, 87 Ohio App.3d 325 (Ohio App.3d 1993) (burden shifting in civil contempt; inability to comply must be shown)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1999) (scope of RC 3109.051 and discretion in parenting-time rulings)