Reisinger v. Topping
2021 Ohio 2545
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Child J.R. born March 9, 2014 to unmarried Mother (Shannon Topping); Father (Lucas Reisinger) later established paternity. Father has a history of heroin addiction and a felony conviction.
- Father filed a motion to allocate parental rights on June 1, 2017; case transferred to Madison County and proceeded to a protracted, multi-day final hearing spread over ten days between July 2018 and Nov. 2019.
- Magistrate designated Mother as residential parent and legal custodian and denied Father's contempt motion (filed re: alleged denials of parenting time in Sept. and Nov. 2018). Father objected; juvenile court independently reviewed the record and adopted the magistrate's decision.
- Juvenile court findings: both parents have relationships with J.R.; no persuasive health issues impairing parenting; Mother more likely to facilitate parenting time; Father was unwilling to compromise and evidence supported attempts by Father/family to alienate J.R. from Mother.
- Court denied contempt (Father failed to prove violation by clear and convincing evidence) and ordered Father to pay all court costs, citing prolonged, combative litigation largely attributable to Father. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Father (appellant) argument | Mother (appellee) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who should be designated residential parent/legal custodian | Father argued the best-interest factors favored him and the court erred in naming Mother | Mother argued custody defaults to unmarried mother absent superior showing and juvenile court properly weighed best-interest factors | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; findings supported by competent, credible evidence and proper application of R.C. 3109.042/3109.04 factors |
| Weight/credibility of guardian ad litem and court-appointed psychologist | Father argued the court improperly disregarded GAL and psychologist recommendations favoring shared custody or Father | Mother argued trial court is ultimate factfinder and may accept or reject expert/GAL recommendations after reviewing record | Held: trial court may credit or reject GAL/psychologist; court considered their reports and properly exercised discretion |
| Contempt for alleged denials of parenting time | Father asserted Mother willfully interfered with his court-ordered parenting time on specified weekends and should be held in contempt | Mother contended her explanations were credible and Father failed to prove a willful violation of a known, valid order by clear and convincing evidence | Held: contempt denied—Father did not meet the clear-and-convincing burden; juvenile court credited Mother’s testimony and found no proven violation |
| Allocation of court costs | Father argued it was unfair to order him to pay all costs; he did not unreasonably drive up litigation expenses | Mother argued prolonged, combative litigation—driven by Father’s tactics—justified awarding costs against him | Held: court did not abuse discretion in awarding costs to Mother given the protracted, contentious proceedings attributed largely to Father’s conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Carpenter v. Johnson, 196 Ohio App.3d 106 (2011) (magistrate recommendations not final until adopted; trial court is ultimate factfinder)
- In re G.N., 170 Ohio App.3d 76 (2007) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)