State v. Villamor-Goubeaux
2016 Ohio 7420
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Villamor-Goubeaux and Michael Goubeaux entered an April 2013 Agreed Entry: child’s primary residence was the marital home, Villamor-Goubeaux had exclusive occupancy, Goubeaux was granted parenting time per the county Standard Order, and neither parent would remove the child from Ohio for more than 14 days without agreement or order.
- In late 2013, before any court modification was granted and without notifying Goubeaux, Villamor-Goubeaux moved with the then-four-year-old child out of Ohio (to New Jersey) and later to Nevada while seeking work.
- Goubeaux obtained temporary interim custody in December 2013; Villamor-Goubeaux did not communicate with him or the court about her or the child’s whereabouts from Thanksgiving 2013 until her arrest in Nevada on February 27, 2014.
- The State indicted Villamor-Goubeaux for interference with custody under R.C. 2919.23(A)(1); after a bench trial she was convicted and sentenced to three years community control and restitution.
- On appeal she raised three issues: (1) whether a custodial parent can be guilty of interference with custody; (2) sufficiency/weight of evidence as to mens rea (knowing/reckless); and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing amendment of the indictment’s date range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of R.C. 2919.23(A)(1) to a custodial parent | State: statute forbids taking/keeping a child from the parent/guardian/custodian when done without privilege or recklessly; applies to disputes between parents | Villamor-Goubeaux: as the custodial/residential parent she had privilege to keep the child and therefore cannot be charged with interference with custody | Court: a custodial parent may be criminally liable; custody under the Agreed Entry did not grant an unfettered privilege to disregard the other parent’s court-ordered parenting time or removal limitations; assignment overruled |
| Mens rea (knowing or reckless) and sufficiency/weight of evidence | State: evidence showed she knowingly/at least recklessly kept the child out of state beyond allowed 14 days and failed to arrange visitation or inform father/court | Villamor-Goubeaux: relied on attorney advice and believed modification would be obtained; lacked requisite mens rea | Court: evidence sufficient; court could find at minimum recklessness (heedless indifference to risk of acting without privilege); verdict not against manifest weight |
| Amendment of indictment (date range) | State: amendment corrected erroneous single date to a date range covering the charged period; made months before trial so no prejudice | Villamor-Goubeaux: amendment substantively changed the offense and deprived grand jury review for the extended period | Court: amendment allowed under Crim.R. 7(D); did not change name/identity of offense and defendant showed no prejudice; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Remedy/relief sought (dismissal/acquittal or reversal) | State: conviction supported by law and evidence | Villamor-Goubeaux: sought dismissal, acquittal, or reversal on the three grounds above | Court: overruled all assignments of error; affirmed conviction and sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Castle v. Castle, 15 Ohio St.3d 279 (common-law duty of parental care may continue past majority for disabled child)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (distinguishing custody from visitation/parenting time)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Beener, 54 Ohio App.2d 14 (statutory headings not part of law; caution in relying on titles)