{¶ 2} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY HOLDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT.
{¶ 3} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEBORAH IN CONTEMPT FOR HAVING VIOLATED JEFF'S PARENTING TIME ON MAY 11, 17, 25, AND 31, 2007.
{¶ 4} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING $350.00 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES AGAINST DEBORAH HOUT."
{¶ 5} The record indicates at the time of the incident the child was seven years old. Appellant and appellee are divorсed. Appellant is the residential parent and appellee has court-ordered parenting time.
{¶ 6} The court found appellant denied appellee his parenting time on May 3, 11, 17, 25, and 31 of 2007. The court sentenced appellant to ten days in jail, suspended, аnd gave her the opportunity to purge herself of contempt by permitting appellee to make up the time. The court alsо ordered appellant to pay appellee's attorney fees of $350.00.
{¶ 8} Appellant correctly states there is a distinction to be drawn between criminal сontempt and civil contempt. Criminal contempt generally results in incarceration with no opportunity for the contemptnor tо purge himself or herself of the contempt, see, e.g.,Brown v. Executive 200, Inc. (1980),
{¶ 9} Our standard of reviewing а court's judgment in a contempt proceeding is the abuse of discretion standard, see, e.g., State ex rel.Celebrezze v. Gibbs (1991),
{¶ 10} The magistrate who heard the matter made extensive findings of fact. The magistrate found appellee did not seek medical treatment for the child after another child accidentally struck him in the eye with a baseball bat. Appellee and the grandmother applied ice to the injury and determined the child's eye function was normal. Appellee's wife called her pediatrician and asked the nurse at the office what should be done. The nurse inquired about the child's symptоms and the nurse apparently told her the child did not need to be seen by a physician. *4
{¶ 11} Appellant argues she was justified in violating the cоurt's visitation order because she had a good-faith belief she was acting to protect the safety of the child. In Boley, supra, this court affirmеd the decision of a trial court not to find a parent in contempt where the parent had a good-faith belief the children's safеty was at risk if they returned to their mother.
{¶ 12} The court found appellee had reason to believe the child's injury was not an emergency bаsed upon his own observations and the telephone advice he had received. The court found in hindsight it would have been more reаsonable for appellee to seek medical attention for the child.
{¶ 13} Appellee did not notify appellant of the injury, but the child did. Approximately one week after the injury, appellant took him for medical treatment. Appellant also notified Richland County Children's Services, which determined appellee's inaction did not constitute dependency, neglect, or abuse. The Richland Cоunty Prosecutor did not prosecute appellee for child endangering. The court found insufficient evidence of any serious permanent injury to the child or any evidence linking appellee's failure to seek medical attention to any currently existing problem.
{¶ 14} Appellee was aware appellant had told her friends and family she wanted appellee out of the child's life. The court found appellee knew appellant would be upset when she discovered the injury, so he made an incorrect judgment call in an аttempt to protect his relationship with his son. The court found appellant had unwittingly contributed to appellee's failure to notify hеr of the injury, and also caused her son to understate his injury to her. *5
{¶ 15} The court concluded appellant's denial of parenting time was nоt reasonably justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. We have reviewed the record, and we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant in contempt of the visitation order.
{¶ 16} The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} At the hearing on June 11, 2007, appellant did not object to evidence she denied aрpellant parenting time on May 11, 17, 25, and 31. To the contrary, appellant admitted denying appellee visitation on those days. We сonclude the trial court did not err in finding her in contempt on each of those occasions.
{¶ 19} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 21} Appellant concedes in Rand v. Rand (1985),
{¶ 22} The trial court's Local Rule 32A.1 provides because the award of attorney fees is mandatory in certain situations, counsel need not make a written motion requesting payment of attorney fees. The Rule states the court considers attorney fees not in excess of $350 to be reasonable in contempt actions, and the court generally will not require evidence to support an award of attorney fees not in excess of $350. However, the court may require evidence if it deems necessary.
{¶ 23} The transcript of the hearing comprises of 190 pages, and appellee testified simply subpoenaing people and preparing for the hearing took between two and three hours. We find the record supports the trial court's award of $350.
{¶ 24} Accordingly, the third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 25} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed.
*7Gwin, J., Hoffman, P.J., and Wise, J., concur