Steele v. Steele
2013 Ohio 3655
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Steele and Malocu divorced in 2007 and shared parenting; in 2010 Malocu became the residential parent with Steele having extended visitation.
- In July 2011 Steele sought show-cause contempt for denied visitation and for alleged interference with telephone contact during a period of investigation.
- M.S., age 6 or 7, reported irritation near the genital area after Steele applied medication; Malocu suspected possible abuse and initiated an investigation.
- Hospital exam showed vaginal irritation but no physical evidence of abuse; a social worker and medical staff did not refer the matter to CSB or police, though Malocu could report herself.
- CSB closed the case as unsubstantiated; Malocu resumed normal visitation soon after; the police action, if any, was unclear.
- Magistrate found Malocu not to have acted in good faith, but ultimately held her in contempt for withholding visitation and failing to ensure Steele’s telephone access; trial court reversed on contempt, vacating fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Malocu was in contempt for denying visitation. | Steele argues Malocu violated court order by denying time. | Malocu contends she acted in good faith to protect the child during investigation. | No contempt; trial court affirmed in Wayne Standard review. |
| Whether Malocu had a reasonable, good faith defense to denial of visitation. | Steele contends there was no legitimate defense to contempt. | Malocu asserts concerns and ongoing investigations justified temporarily withholding visitation. | Defense supported; not in contempt. |
| Whether there was clear error on the interference with telephone contact claim. | Steele asserts interference via texting and missed call violated orders. | Malocu argues communications were primarily by text and a single missed call during summer school; not contempt. | No contempt for telephone contact interference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Rock, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25311, 2013-Ohio-390 (Ohio 2d Dist. Montgomery (2013)) (clear and convincing standard for contempt; appellate review of magistrate under abuse of discretion)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2011 CA 86, 2012-Ohio-4182 (Ohio 2d Dist. Clark (2012)) (appellate review of contempt findings)
- Hensley v. Hensley, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-08-026, 2009-Ohio-1738 (Ohio 6th Dist. Erie (2009)) (reasonable, good faith defense to denial of visitation)
- McClead v. McClead, 4th Dist. Washington No. 06CA67, 2007-Ohio-4624 (Ohio 4th Dist. Washington (2007)) (good faith basis for withholding visitation in some circumstances)
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA98-10-085, CA98-10-091, 1999 WL 619049 (Ohio 12th Dist. Clermont (1999)) (standards for contempt and parental rights balance)
- Dayton v. Whiting, 110 Ohio App.3d 115, 673 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio App. 1996) (independent review of magistrate’s report; de novo standard)
- Proctor v. Proctor, 48 Ohio App.3d 55, 548 N.E.2d 287 (Ohio App. 3d (3d Dist. 1988)) (abuse of discretion standard on appellate review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion framework)
- Juergens v. Strileckyj, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2010 CA 36, 2010-Ohio-5159 (Ohio 2d Dist. Clark (2010)) (standards for appellate deference in custody contempt)