2020 Ohio 3647
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Deron Saylor and Holly Lewis divorced in 2016; they share three children (twin boys born 2003 and a daughter born 2006). A GAL recommended restricting the boys’ internet and social-media access after sexualized internet behavior.
- Divorce decree included a shared-parenting plan with restrictions; the parties signed an agreed entry on March 14, 2018 (after a partial trial) that terminated the shared-parenting plan and "designate[d] the mother the temporary residential and custodial parent" until further order or agreement.
- Saylor had earlier obtained an agreed entry (Jan. 17, 2017) requiring removal of the children from social media; he later alleged Lewis continued to allow inappropriate social-media/internet use and filed multiple motions seeking contempt and a change of parental rights (most recently Dec. 21, 2018).
- The trial court limited consideration of Saylor’s December 2018 custody motion to events occurring after the March 14, 2018 agreed entry, found no post-entry change in circumstances, and denied Saylor’s motions.
- On appeal Saylor argued (1) the agreed entry did not resolve the issues and could not be treated as a prior decree triggering the statutory change-in-circumstances standard, and (2) the trial court misweighed evidence and misapplied rules; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 14, 2018 agreed entry was a prior decree that resolved pending motions and thus required Saylor to show a post-entry change in circumstances | The agreed entry merely reflected an agreement to "work together" and was temporary, so Saylor should be allowed to present pre-entry evidence and not be bound by the change-in-circumstances rule | The agreed entry expressly resolved all pending motions (terminated shared parenting) and its use of "temporary" described custody allocation only; it was a final resolution of those motions | The agreed entry resolved the pending motions; the court properly treated it as the prior decree and limited evidence to post–March 14, 2018 events |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in weighing evidence (including alleged neglect/abuse, use of Evid.R. 405(B), and compliance with local rule) | Saylor says the court ignored relevant conduct, should have considered specific incidents and pre-entry behavior, and violated statutory and local-rule obligations | Lewis says no abusive/neglectful conduct was shown post-entry; Evid.R.405(B) does not apply; the court reasonably found Saylor uncooperative and supportive evidence lacking; local-rule claim not properly raised on appeal | No abuse of discretion. Limiting evidence to post-entry events was proper; Evid.R.405(B) inapplicable; court’s credibility and cooperation findings were supported; Loc.R.1.13(B) issue not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (trial court has broad discretion in custody determinations)
- Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353 (1997) (contract/agreement interpretation focuses on parties’ chosen language)
- Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 181 Ohio App.3d 167 (2009) (agreed entries interpreted by their clear language to determine parties’ intent)
- Shah v. Smith, 181 Ohio App.3d 264 (2009) (de novo review appropriate for legal questions like contract/agreed-entry interpretation)
- State ex rel. Thompson v. Spon, 83 Ohio St.3d 551 (1998) (temporary/interlocutory pretrial orders contemplated by rules)
- State v. Harris, 92 N.E.3d 1283 (2017) (appellate review limited to assignments of error presented)