CHRISTOPHER BATTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, - vs - JULIE BATTY, Defendant-Appellee.
CASE NO. CA2017-10-151
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
12/10/2018
[Cite as Batty v. Batty, 2018-Ohio-4934.]
CIVIL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. CR12-05-0669
John C. Kaspar, 130 East Mulberry Street, Lebanon, OH 45036, for defendant-appellee
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Christopher Batty (“Father“), appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, regarding the care of the parties’ child.
{¶ 2} Father and defendant-appellee, Julie Batty (“Mother“), are the parents of a seven-year old son. Following the parties’ divorce in May 2013, Father was granted custody
{¶ 3} Consequently, on August 3, 2016, Mother filed a contempt motion against Father, alleging Father had failed to notify her of special activities or events at the child‘s school on five separate occasions. Mother further moved to be designated as the child‘s custodian and residential parent, or in the alternative, for shared parenting. Father moved to modify the parties’ parenting time.
{¶ 4} A hearing on the motions was held before a magistrate. On March 8, 2017, the magistrate denied Mother‘s motion for custody or shared parenting and granted Father‘s motion to modify parenting time. The magistrate further found Father in contempt for failing to notify Mother of two special activities or events at the child‘s school in violation of the divorce decree, to wit, a Book Buddy program in January 2016 and a Jesus Love Me Party in February 2016. Both parties filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. Specifically, Father objected to the two contempt findings and to 18 of the magistrate‘s findings of fact.
{¶ 5} On September 22, 2017, the trial court upheld the magistrate‘s contempt findings against Father and the magistrate‘s denial of Mother‘s motion for custody. The trial court further made several orders regarding the parties’ care of the child and Father‘s obligation to notify Mother of all information regarding the child.
{¶ 6} Father now appeals, raising three assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN FAILING TO ADDRESS APPELLANT‘S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE‘S FINDINGS OF FACT.
{¶ 9} Father argues the trial court erred in failing to rule on his objections to the magistrate‘s findings of fact. Father‘s first assignment of error is sustained on the basis of
Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT‘S ORDER AS TO A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THESE PROCEEDINGS IS VOID.
{¶ 12} In its decision, the trial court ordered, “[Stepmother] is not to attend parent/child-oriented activities, such as field trips, hayrides, sports practices, or other activities that occur on [Mother‘s] parenting time absent express agreement of the parties.” Father argues the trial court erred in prohibiting Stepmother from attending such activities because the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over Stepmother, a nonparty. In support of his argument, Father cites Ramus v. Ramus, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 38540 and 38148 thru 38150, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 10098 (July 27, 1978).
{¶ 13} “In an action in which the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over one
{¶ 14} Father‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN ENTERING VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS AND OVERLY BROAD ORDERS OF WHICH THE PARTIES CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE.
{¶ 17} Father challenges the following trial court‘s orders on the ground they are so vague and overbroad that he cannot know what he must do to comply with them: (1) Father “shall take a screenshot of any incidental paperwork or bulletins received and text it to [Mother] immediately after he receives them;” (2) Father “will forward all emails and texts received from all sources that relate to [the child] to [Mother] immediately after receipt;” and (3) “The items that [Father] is required to forward to [Mother] are not simply game or other activity dates, but team rosters, parent contact information for teams and all other activities,
{¶ 18} We find that the first and third orders are not vague or overbroad. Anecdotal is defined as “relating to.” Merriam-Webster‘s Online: Dictionary and Thesaurus, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/anecdotal (accessed Nov. 27, 2018). Incidental is a synonym of associated. See William C. Burton, Burton‘s Legal Thesaurus, 268 (1st Ed.1980). Upon reviewing the trial court‘s decision in its entirety, we find that the first and third orders are plainly related to the child‘s activities, projects, events, practices, and homework, be it from school, sports, or extracurricular or recreational activities. Thus, the orders require Father to provide any paperwork, bulletins, and information related to the child‘s school education, participation in sports, and extracurricular activities to Mother. The orders reflect the trial court‘s goal to reduce the risk of parental alienation regarding Mother and to ensure Mother has an active role in the child‘s school education and school-oriented activities, sports of choice and sports-oriented activities, extracurricular or recreational activities, and any other parent/child-oriented activities. As the trial court stated, Father “is responsible for [e]nsuring that [Mother] has all information regarding [the child]. [Mother] should not have to guess where and when an event will take place, or whether valentines, snacks, or other details are included if [Father] or his surrogate have the information.”
{¶ 19} We find, however, that the trial court‘s order requiring Father to forward “all emails and texts received from all sources that relate to [the child]” is vague and overbroad. Examples provided by Father in his brief suggest the order could apply, among other things, to correspondence between Father and his counsel or between Father and his relatives as
{¶ 20} “We do not believe it is this court‘s function to second-guess the trial court‘s actions.” Williams v. Williams, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA92-05-084, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 138, *8 (Jan. 19, 1993). We therefore sustain Father‘s third assignment of error regarding this order and remand the matter to the trial court to clarify the phrase “all emails and texts received from all sources that relate to [the child]” as well as Father‘s obligations pursuant to that order. Id.; In re C.E.J. at ¶ 30.
{¶ 21} Father‘s third assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part.
{¶ 22} Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
S. POWELL, P.J., concurs.
PIPER, J., concurs separately.
PIPER, J., concurring separately.
{¶ 23} I concur with my colleagues that reversal and remand is necessary so that the trial court can make a ruling on Father‘s objection and issue a more detailed order regarding future communication between Mother and Father. I write separately to articulate
{¶ 24} Within Father‘s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court failed to address his objections. The record indicates that Father filed detailed objections, grouping his disagreement with the magistrate‘s decision into three main categories: (1) factual findings, (2) contempt issues, and (3) the nomenclature to be used by the child in referring to his stepmother. Within the first group of objections, and as pointed out by the majority, Father addressed 18 specific instances where he believed the magistrate made a finding of fact that contradicted the testimony and evidence.
{¶ 25} While the trial court did not expressly rule on Father‘s first set of objections to the magistrate‘s findings of fact, the trial court‘s decision does in fact address some of the issues raised by Father. Specifically, the trial court discusses the visitation schedule and reviewed the factors for consideration when determining what visitation schedule was in the child‘s best interest. In so doing, the trial court referred to some of the same findings by the magistrate that Father challenged within his objections. As such, the record does demonstrate the trial court‘s attempt to address Father‘s concerns regarding the evidence and whether inconsistencies existed. This discussion disposes of some aspects of Father‘s first set of objections. However, the trial court did not address all components of Father‘s objections, many of which could have impact on the five additional orders made by the trial court regarding future communication between Mother and Father.
{¶ 26} While
{¶ 27} While I sympathize with the trial court and recognize its attempt to address Father‘s objections within its analysis of the best interest factors and other aspects of its decision, I agree with the majority that a remand is necessitated here because several components of Father‘s objections remained unaddressed. This is particularly pertinent when the trial court‘s review of Father‘s objections is also relevant to the ultimate resolution of what Father shall be ordered to do in facilitating future communication issues with Mother.
{¶ 28} As such, I join with the opinion of my colleagues.