Wintrow v. Baxter-Wintrow
2013 Ohio 919
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Dignity: 2007 divorce; Don named residential parent and legal custodian; Tracie had supervised Sunday visits.
- February 2011: Tracie moved to modify visitation; May 2011 magistrate noted agreement and scheduled August evidentiary hearing.
- August 2011 hearing: magistrate increased Tracie’s parenting time; Don objected to Wednesday and Sunday overnights.
- Trial court reduced visitation to alternate Wednesdays after school–8:00 p.m. and alternate weekends; Tracie moved to modify again in December 2011 and sought a shared parenting plan.
- January 2012 hearing: magistrate appeared hesitant, stated issues were resolved, and refused to hear merits of Tracie’s motions; transcript ends mid-record.
- January 31, 2012: magistrate purportedly based on prior hearings denied outstanding motions; trial court denied objections; appellate court later found due process violations and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court deny due process by not allowing evidence? | Wintrow argues she was denied a hearing and opportunity to present evidence on motions. | Wintrow contends the magistrate already resolved or deferred merits; no additional hearing required. | Yes; due process violated; merits not heard. |
| Did the court err by failing to consider Tracie’s motion to adopt a shared parenting plan? | Wintrow asserts the motion to adopt a shared plan remained pending and deserved consideration. | Wintrow’s motions were deemed resolved or not properly considered by the magistrate. | Yes; motion to adopt a shared parenting plan was not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Cloyd, 9th Dist. No. 24150, 2008-Ohio-5232 (2008-Ohio-5232) (trial court abuse of discretion in custody matters requires abuse to reverse)
- Tabatabai v. Tabatabai, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0049-M, 2009-Ohio-3139 (2009-Ohio-3139) (custody decisions demand deference to trial court witnesses and demeanor)
- Graves v. Graves, 9th Dist. No. 3242-M, 2002-Ohio-3740 (2002-Ohio-3740) (broad discretion in parental rights and responsibilities)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988) (1988) (custody determinations require careful consideration and factual support)
- In re Hua, 62 Ohio St.2d 227, 232 (1980) (1980) (due process includes notice and opportunity to be heard)
- State v. Edwards, 157 Ohio St. 175 (1952) (1952) (due process parallels in custody matters and constitutional rights)