Marriage of Guymer v. Guymer
2011 OK CIV APP 4
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2010Background
- Petitioner/Appellee Amy Guymer-LeWarne and Respondent/Appellant Geoffrey Guymer are divorced; Mother has custody of two daughters and joint custody of the son.
- Younger daughter moved to Iowa with Mother; Father sought modification of visitation to continue access.
- In 2006, Mother relocated to Iowa and a visitation order was entered, altering visitation substantially in favor of Mother.
- By 2008, Father sought to enforce visitation; a subsequent order directed that all future visitation be initiated and coordinated solely by Dr. Steiner, the child’s psychologist.
- Father challenged the 2008 order as an improper divestiture of court jurisdiction over visitation; the trial court also modified child support and awarded attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly delegated visitation authority | Guymer argues the court divested itself of jurisdiction by assigning visitation to a private psychologist. | Guymer contends that supervision by a therapist was necessary for the child’s welfare and stability. | Yes; court erred by delegating visitation to a private party. |
| Whether child support imputation was abused | Father contends imputed income based on prior wages was inappropriate after layoff. | Mother asserts imputation reflects capable earning potential to support the child. | Yes; imputation of prior income was an abuse of discretion; remand to re-examine finances. |
| Whether attorney fees were properly awarded to Mother | Father contends the fee award was improper given the visitation issues and merits. | Mother maintains fees were proper under the circumstances. | No; reversed the fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re the Marriage of Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo.Ct.App. 1997) (trial court cannot delegate visitation authority to a psychiatrist)
- In re Donnovan, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1474 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (courts regulate visitation; therapists are not arms of the court)
- Finger v. Finger, 923 P.2d 1195 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996) (equitable considerations do not justify fee awards in all cases)
- Kulscar v. Kulscar, 896 P.2d 1206 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (appellate review of equity decisions requires examining the weight of the evidence)