2018 Ohio 1102
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Deanna (Mother) and Daniel (Father) divorced in 2014; Mother was residential parent for two minor children; the older child became an adult before the contested motion.
- Father filed a motion on August 18, 2016 to temporarily increase parenting time with the younger child prior to his military deployment.
- A magistrate held an expedited hearing and in-camera interview, and on October 7, 2016 granted a temporary modified parenting-time order allowing increased time before deployment and granting Father custody during any leave while deployed; the order would expire upon Father’s return.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision the same day. Mother filed objections arguing (among other points) that the court lacked authority to modify visitation as it did and that deployment could not justify modification.
- The trial court later found some objections moot because Father’s deployment had begun and the temporary increased visitation had ended; Mother appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part and dismissed as moot the portions relating to the expired temporary modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by overruling Mother’s objections and approving temporary increased visitation under R.C. 3109.051(M) and R.C. 3109.04(I) | Mother argued the court lacked authority to modify visitation as it did and that deployment could not serve as a change in circumstances | Father argued the court properly used R.C. 3109.051 to temporarily modify visitation before deployment; R.C. 3109.04(I) inapplicable | Court declined to reach merits for many points: Mother conceded R.C. 3109.04(I) inapplicable; portions not preserved were forfeited; temporary modification issues rendered moot and dismissed |
| Whether Mother preserved objection to parenting time during any deployment leave | Mother contended the modification was improper | Father relied on the magistrate order and lack of specific objection below | Forfeiture: Mother failed to specifically object to the leave-duration provision, so appellate review was forfeited |
| Whether the trial court should have decided objections rather than deeming them moot | Mother argued the court erred by declaring objections moot without adjudication | Father noted the temporary modification had ended with deployment, leaving no relief to grant | Mootness: appellate court concluded the increased visitation ceased with deployment and any relief would be ineffective, so issues tied to the temporary order are moot |
| Whether prior contempt by Father made the modification an abuse of discretion | Mother argued granting more time to a parent previously held in contempt was inconsistent with best interests and abused discretion | Father argued the magistrate/trial court considered best interests and temporary relief was appropriate given deployment | Appellate court did not decide on the merits because related claims were forfeited or moot; assignments relating to the temporary modification were overruled or dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1999) (modification of visitation governed by R.C. 3109.051, not R.C. 3109.04 custody-change rules)
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895) (defining mootness: when an appellate court cannot grant effectual relief)