Sovern v. Sovern
2016 Ohio 7542
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jason filed for divorce in Nov. 2014; the parties have one minor child, R.S.; multiple temporary orders (shared parenting, exclusive home use to Jason) and a GAL were appointed.
- Psychologist Dr. Richard Bromberg evaluated both parents and diagnosed psychological issues in each; he recommended Jason be residential parent and recommended against shared parenting in the present circumstances.
- GAL recommended shared parenting if feasible; alternatively recommended custody to Kinsey as primary caregiver but doubted the parents’ ability to cooperate.
- Magistrate found high parental hostility, credibility problems with Kinsey (including an Iowa civil protection order and transient residence/employment history), imputed income to Kinsey, denied spousal support, and adopted a standard parenting-time schedule favoring Jason as residential parent.
- Trial court reviewed objections, adopted the magistrate’s findings and the psychologist’s opinion, overruled Kinsey’s objections, and entered final divorce decree on March 15, 2016. Kinsey appealed on custody/parenting-time, support (child and spousal), and division of property grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kinsey) | Defendant's Argument (Jason) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of parental rights (residential parent/legal custodian) | Kinsey argued trial court abused discretion, should have named her residential parent or shared parenting; court punished her for employment/CPO | Jason and experts argued shared parenting is not in child’s best interest due to high conflict; Jason sought residential custody | Court affirmed: substantial competent evidence supports naming Jason residential parent; not an abuse of discretion |
| Parenting-time schedule (more/equal time for Kinsey) | Kinsey sought more or equal parenting time; pointed to GAL and parts of psychologist’s report | Jason and experts emphasized child’s stress at exchanges and parents’ high conflict; recommended standard schedule until co-parenting improves | Court affirmed standard parenting-time schedule, finding transitions and parental hostility make expanded/equal time not in child’s best interest |
| Child and spousal support; imputation of income to Kinsey | Kinsey argued she was not voluntarily underemployed and should not have income imputed; sought spousal support | Trial court/judge imputed income based on education, work history, vocational assessment and found Kinsey voluntarily underemployed; denied spousal support as not appropriate/reasonable | Court affirmed imputation of income ($63,315 used) and denial of spousal support; factual findings supported by record and within discretion |
| Division of personal property | Kinsey contended trial court awarded household contents to each party but left many of her items at Jason’s house and failed to equitably divide assets/liabilities | Jason noted parties had stipulated to personal property division and appraisal was done at Kinsey’s counsel’s request | Court declined to review: Kinsey failed to cite authority/record and had stipulated to the division; issue waived/overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 2007) (statutory framework for parental rights allocations and shared parenting options)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (standard: custody decisions lie within trial court discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (reversal standard when custody award supported by credible competent evidence)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 117 Ohio App.3d 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (distinguished: trial court may not base custody solely on nonresidence; courts must weigh all best-interest factors)