Renner v. Renner
2013 Ohio 4644
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Parents divorced in 2008; shared parenting plan (the Plan) required Jack to attend Forest Hills schools through 8th grade and governed relocation (paragraphs 14 and 32).
- Mother's Forest Hills home was foreclosed; she moved with Jack within Hamilton County (to Mt. Washington/Cincinnati Public Schools) in May 2012 and filed a notice of intent to relocate.
- Father enrolled Jack in the Milford School District on June 1, 2012; Father later moved the court to order enrollment in Milford for 2012/2013 school year.
- Magistrate issued a temporary restraining order preventing Mother from changing Jack’s residence/school; by the time Mother was served she had already moved.
- Magistrate found Mother in contempt for relocating and changing Jack’s school district, denied Mother’s request for individual therapy for Jack, and found Father not in contempt for enrolling Jack in Milford; trial court affirmed.
- On appeal, the court reversed the contempt finding against Mother for relocation and school-change, affirmed denial of contempt as to Father, and affirmed denial of court-ordered individual therapy for Jack.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Renner) | Defendant's Argument (Jeffrey Renner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother was in contempt for moving/residential change under paragraph 32 | Paragraph 32 is ambiguous; moving within Hamilton County did not require permission, and Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate | Paragraph 32 mandates a hearing prior to any residential change unless a written, journalized agreement exists; Mother violated that provision | Reversed: Court held paragraph 32 ambiguous as written and Mother did not have clear notice of an obligation preventing her move; contempt for residence change was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Mother was in contempt for changing Jack’s school district | Mother contends she did not cause an unauthorized school change and sought court modification; any school change required prior journalized agreement or court order | Father argues his June enrollment merely held a spot after Mother’s move made Forest Hills unavailable; magistrate later ordered Milford for Jack | Reversed as to contempt for school-change: prior to any actual school attendance elsewhere, the court approved the school change (magistrate ordered Milford), so Mother did not violate paragraph 32 |
| Whether Father was in contempt for enrolling Jack in Milford on June 1 before court approval | Father enrolled without prior court order, violating paragraph 14/32 | Father says he enrolled only to reserve a spot since Jack could no longer attend Forest Hills after Mother moved; he later sought court approval and the magistrate approved Milford | Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion in finding Father not in contempt given circumstances and subsequent court approval of Milford enrollment |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Mother’s motion to order individual therapy for Jack | Mother argued Jack displays concerning behaviors in her home and an independent expert or court-ordered therapy is warranted | Father opposed therapy and testified Jack does not exhibit same behaviors in his home; little expert proof was offered | Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion—Mother failed to present sufficient evidence that court-ordered individual therapy was in Jack’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Marden v. Marden, 108 Ohio App.3d 568 (12th Dist. 1996) (contempt requires violation of a lawful court order)
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1984) (contempt need not be intentional to be punishable)
- State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10 (Ohio 1981) (standard for appellate review of contempt/abuse of discretion)