2018 Ohio 3847
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Parents divorced in Butler County, Ohio in 2008; separation agreement named mother residential parent; father retained regular parenting time and exchanges often occurred in Butler County.
- Mother and children moved to Villa Hills, Kenton County, Kentucky after separation and lived there for roughly a decade; children attended school in Kentucky.
- In 2017 father moved in Butler County court to be designated sole custodial parent, alleging parental alienation and a change in the children’s wishes; mother moved to declare Butler County an inconvenient forum and requested transfer to Kentucky under R.C. 3127.21.
- The Butler County domestic relations court held a hearing limited to forum convenience, found Ohio was not an inconvenient forum, and denied mother’s motion; mother appealed.
- Mother argued Kentucky was the more convenient forum (children’s long residence and witnesses there), that the trial court relied on improper financial evidence and on her prior contempt filing; mother also challenged exclusion of questioning about father’s fee arrangement with his attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler County is an inconvenient forum under R.C. 3127.21 | Kentucky is the more convenient forum because mother and children have lived there for years and relevant witnesses/evidence are in Kentucky | Ohio remains a proper forum because children previously lived in Ohio, father has regular parenting time there, exchanges occur nearby, and many statutory factors did not weigh against Ohio | Court did not abuse discretion: Kentucky convenient for mother but mother failed to show Ohio was an inconvenient forum; denial affirmed |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on undisclosed financial documents | Court improperly used father's W-2s not admitted into evidence to assess relative finances | Father testified about income; court considered living circumstances and testimony (e.g., mother lives with parents) | No abuse of discretion: testimony provided financial info and court reasonably assessed relative finances |
| Whether the court improperly considered mother's prior contempt filing | Mother had to file contempt in Ohio to enforce child support and vehicle debt, so it shouldn't count against her | Prior filing in Ohio indicates ongoing contacts with Ohio and is one of many factors | No abuse: court permissibly weighed the filing as one factor but it did not control outcome |
| Whether attorney-client privilege barred inquiry into father’s fee arrangement with his counsel | Mother sought to question father about discounted or gratuitous legal services as relevant to his ability to litigate in Kentucky | Father asserted attorney-client privilege and trial court sustained objection | No abuse: trial court acted within discretion to sustain privilege objection; the inquiry risked revealing privileged communications |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (purpose and scope of attorney-client privilege)
- State ex rel. Papp v. James, 69 Ohio St.3d 373 (1994) (custody proceedings as a special proceeding under R.C. 2505.02)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (custody proceedings qualify as special proceedings for appealability)
- State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 146 Ohio St.3d 292 (2016) (distinguishing narrative vs non-narrative attorney-billing information and privilege considerations)