BRETT BEUCLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JENNAH BEUCLER, Defendant-Appellee.
CASE NO. CA2014-05-009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BROWN COUNTY
3/23/2015
[Cite as Beucler v. Beucler, 2015-Ohio-1084.]
HENDRICKSON, J.
APPEAL FROM BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. DRA2012-1068
Susan Mineer, 65 North Second Street, Suite 200, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for defendant-appellee
O P I N I O N
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Brett Beucler (Father), appeals a decision of the Brown County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, designating defendant-appellee, Jennah Beucler (Mother), residential parent of the parties’ minor children for school purposes.
{¶ 2} Mother and Father were married and have two young children, a son born in January 2010 and a daughter born in February 2012. In October 2012, Father filed a
{¶ 3} A magistrate conducted a hearing regarding the parenting time and child support issues on February 11, May 30, and August 29 of 2013. At the hearing, Father testified that he is a high school math teacher and has a home-based business, selling AdvoCare products. Father also trains children in basketball in his spare time. During the school year, Father leaves home around 6:45 a.m. and returns at approximately 3:00 p.m. Father stated that in the summer, he has a flexible schedule and is only away from home a couple hours a day for basketball training. Father owns a home in Winchester, Ohio and many of his family members live in the surrounding area, who are available to watch the children if Father is busy.
{¶ 4} Father explained that he met Mother when they were both attending Rio Grande University. The pair lived near the college in Gallipolis, Ohio while Mother was pregnant with their first child. After their son was born, Father obtained a teaching position in Mt. Orab, Ohio, near where Father grew up, and the family moved to that area. The couple decided Mother would remain at home and raise the children while Father would work to support the family. Father explained that during this time, he would return home from work in the afternoon, go to AdvoCare trainings at night, and be home around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. Once he returned for the night, he would help with the children. At the hearing, Father recognized that Mother was the primary parent during the marriage and he trusted Mother to
{¶ 5} Mother testified that she and the children currently live in Gallipolis, Ohio in the lower level of the home of her father and stepmother. The lower level is finished and has a bathroom and living area where she and the children sleep. Mother‘s family lives upstairs and the children have a strong relationship with their grandfather, stepgrandmother, aunt, and uncle. Mother currently has a part-time job where she works three days a week. Mother explained that she does not plan to start working full-time until the youngest child starts school.
{¶ 6} Mother stated that when she and Father were together, the couple moved from Gallipolis to Winchester because of Father‘s teaching job. While Father was working, she stayed at home and took care of the children. She testified that Father was never home at 3:00 p.m., instead he would go to basketball training or sell AdvoCare products. Mother stated she felt isolated and did the majority of the work taking care of the children.
{¶ 7} Dr. A. Eugene Smiley, a professional clinical counselor for Life Span Solutions, testified and submitted reports regarding the allocation of parenting time. Dr. Smiley explained he initially counseled Mother and Father for possible reconciliation and if the pair decided to divorce, what the best interest of the children would be in the matter.
{¶ 8} Therefore, Dr. Smiley only met with Mother and Father together or individually and did not do a full custody evaluation. Dr. Smiley stated it is in the best interest of the children to have equal and regular contact with each parent because both Mother and Father are loving and capable parents. However, an equal distribution of time would probably not be possible once the children reach school age due to the distance between the parents’ residences. Dr. Smiley stated that from his sessions with the couple, it is apparent Mother
{¶ 9} David Hunter, the guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed in the case, testified and filed a proposed shared parenting plan designating Father as residential parent for school purposes on the last day of the hearing. The GAL explained that he waited until the final hearing day to make his recommendation because both Mother and Father are good parents and he wanted to evaluate each parent‘s testimony before submitting his proposed parenting plan. The GAL stated he has concerns over Mother‘s credibility and cited instances where he believed Mother was not forthright. He also stated Mother should not be deemed residential parent for school purposes simply because she is the mother because both parents, male or female, can be nurturing to children. He then stated, “[m]y issue has more to do with the statutory factors that I have to consider, which go to a lot of prospective things, as to what could happen. This case is a result of mom leaving with the children and going a significant distance away.” The GAL also noted that while Father has a busy schedule, Mother will eventually have to obtain full-time employment to provide for the children.
{¶ 10} After the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate took the case under consideration and filed a Decree of Divorce on November 4, 2013. The magistrate found the GAL‘s proposed shared parenting plan to be in the best interest of the children. Therefore, Father was designated residential parent for school purposes.
{¶ 11} Mother objected to the magistrate‘s decision. On February 4, 2014, the trial court found Mother‘s objection well-taken and reversed the magistrate‘s decision regarding parenting time. The trial court found the shared parenting plan proposed by Mother, designating her residential parent for school purposes, was in the children‘s best interest and
{¶ 12} Father now appeals, asserting a sole assignment of error:
{¶ 13} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY REVERSING THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION REGARDING PARENTING TIME AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION WAS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE, REPORTS, AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT A THREE-DAY TRIAL AND WAS NOT UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY, OR UNCONSCIONABLE.
{¶ 14} Father argues the trial court erred in reversing the magistrate‘s decision designating Father residential parent for school purposes. Father maintains that because the magistrate was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of Mother and Father and the trial court found both were fit parents, the court should have deferred to the magistrate‘s determination. Father also contends the trial court was incorrect in stating that the magistrate failed to consider the children‘s young age and relied on possible future circumstances in his custody determination.
{¶ 15} An appellate court reviews a trial court‘s custody determination for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988); Ruble v. Ruble, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2010-09-019, 2011-Ohio-3350, ¶ 10. An abuse of discretion constitutes more than an error of law or judgment; it requires a finding that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). “The discretion which a trial court enjoys in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court‘s determination will have on the lives of
{¶ 16} In ruling on objections to a magistrate‘s decision,
{¶ 17} In divorce proceedings, a domestic relations court must “allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor children of the marriage.”
{¶ 18} In determining a child‘s best interest, the court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the enumerated factors in
{¶ 19} This court has recognized that in allocating parental rights and responsibilities, the best interest factors listed in
{¶ 20} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in designating Mother residential parent for school purposes. The evidence demonstrated that both Mother and Father are good parents and the GAL and Dr. Smiley recognized that choosing between Mother and Father as residential parent was a difficult decision. The GAL struggled with whether to endorse Mother or Father as residential parent and in his initial reports regarding custody, he stated he was unable to recommend either parent because “this is a rare case where the best interest factors fail to provide a clear guideline.” The GAL waited until he observed both parents testify and on the last hearing day he recommended Father be designated as residential parent. In recommending Father, the GAL cited concerns over Mother‘s credibility, and future possibilities, such as the fact that
{¶ 21} On objections to the magistrate‘s decision, the trial court chose to emphasize Mother‘s status as the primary caregiver of two young children over the GAL‘s concerns regarding Mother‘s return to the area where her family resides and Mother‘s future employment opportunities. We cannot find this constitutes an abuse of discretion where the evidence clearly demonstrates that both Mother and Father are good parents, Mother is the primary caregiver of the children, and the children are a young age. Dr. Smiley testified that depriving the children of significant time with Mother would be detrimental to the children‘s well-being because Mother has spent substantial time with the children.1 Father did not provide any expert testimony refuting Dr. Smiley‘s conclusions. Both parents testified that Mother remained at home and primarily raised the children during the marriage.
{¶ 22} Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the GAL‘s concerns over Mother‘s future employment status as this court has stated that it is error to rely on future circumstances coupled with a failure to consider the primary caregiver of a young child. See Seibert. The evidence demonstrated that both Mother and Father are good parents and under the facts of this case, it would be hard to reverse the trial court‘s decision designating either Mother or Father as residential parent for school purposes.
{¶ 23} Lastly, we note that to the extent Father argues the trial court should have deferred to the magistrate‘s credibility and parental suitability determinations because the magistrate observed the witnesses testify, he is in error.
{¶ 24} Father‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 25} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.