2019 Ohio 5364
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Parties never married; father filed for parental rights in 2007 and the parties initially agreed to a shared parenting plan.
- In 2013 the court, by consent, terminated the shared plan, named mother residential parent, and granted father unsupervised visitation under the court’s JC-3 companionship schedule.
- Father filed a contempt motion in April 2018 alleging mother (1) denied Labor Day 2017 visitation, (2) denied Christmas 2017 visitation, (3) relocated without court notice/outside the child’s school district, and (4) removed the child’s phone to block calls.
- Contempt hearing occurred July 16, 2018; mother testified she took the child to Columbus over Labor Day and offered alternative pickup locations but admitted father did not agree and admitted she did not file a court notice of relocation.
- Juvenile court found mother in contempt for (a) denying Labor Day 2017 parenting time and (b) failing to file a Notice of Intent to Relocate; it imposed a 72-hour jail sentence (stayed if purge conditions met), a $50 fine, make-up visitation, disclosure of contact information, payment of costs/fees, and set a purge hearing.
- Mother appealed; the Sixth District affirmed, applying civil-contempt standards and concluding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.W.) | Defendant's Argument (K.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother contemptuously deprived father of Labor Day 2017 parenting time | Father: mother unilaterally changed pickup location/times, depriving him of his court-ordered holiday visitation under JC-3 | Mother: parties had an established practice of negotiating exchanges; she reasonably expected to negotiate and reasonably offered pick-up alternatives in Columbus | Court: affirmed contempt finding — mother violated JC-3 by placing the child away from the residence and changing exchange without father’s agreement; mother’s intent not required for contempt |
| Whether mother contemptuously failed to notify court of relocation | Father: mother admitted she moved outside the residence listed in the order and did not file the required notice (R.C. 3109.051/G and JC-3 ¶22) | Mother: she notified counsel and father by text, father always could reach her, and child remained able to attend same school | Court: affirmed contempt finding — mother admitted she did not file the Notice of Intent to Relocate; failure to file violated JC-3 and justified contempt |
| Whether sanctions and purge conditions were appropriate | Father: requested coercive sanctions, make-up visits, attorney fees and costs | Mother: challenged contempt and sanctions on the record; appealed | Court: sanctions (72 hours jail stayed, $50 fine, make-up visitation, address/contact disclosure, costs/fees) fall within statutory range for first-offense civil contempt and give opportunity to purge; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Docks Venture, L.L.C. v. Dashing Pacific Group, Ltd., 22 N.E.3d 1035 (final, appealable nature of contempt orders)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, 3 N.E.3d 179 (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of civil contempt findings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Pugh v. Pugh, 472 N.E.2d 1085 (clear-and-convincing standard in contempt contexts)
- Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 271 N.E.2d 815 (contempt as disobedience of court order)
- State v. Kilbane, 400 N.E.2d 386 (court’s power to characterize and punish contempt; civil contempt coercive purpose)
- Liming v. Damos, 979 N.E.2d 297 (purge hearings conclude the originating contempt proceeding)