Case Information
*1
[Cite as
In re A.D.B.
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: A.D.B. :
CASE NO. CA2015-10-180 :
O P I N I O N : 10/3/2016 :
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Cаse No. JS2014-1056 Douglas Songer, 1029 Clinton Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45015, appellant, pro se Moser Law, LLC, Donald Moser, 1040 Symmes Road, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for appellee
S. POWELL, J. Appellant, a grandfather ("Grandfather"), appeals from the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying his request for legal custody of A.D.B., his granddaughter. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History Grandfather is the рaternal grandfather of A.D.B., born December 7, 2010.
A.D.B.'s mother ("Mother") and father ("Father") were never married. After beginning their relationship in 2009, Mother and Father's relationship ended in June of 2012. On November 29, 2012, Grandfather filed a motion for an emergency ex parte
hearing and a motion for custody of A.D.B. after A.D.B. sustained an injury to her neck while in Mother's care. That same day, a magistrate grantеd Grandfather's request for an ex parte hearing and placed A.D.B. in the temporary custody of Father. The matter was later resolved after the trial court accepted a mediation agreement between Mother and Father that restored Mother as the residential parent and legal custodian of A.D.B. Grandfather then voluntarily dismissed his complaint seeking legal сustody of A.D.B. on January 7, 2013. Approximately six months later, on July 9, 2013, Grandfather filed another complaint seeking legal custody of A.D.B. As part of this complaint, Grandfather alleged Mother had "engaged in the use of illegal drugs and substances, including, but not limited to marijuana while the minor child was present." Grandfather also alleged that Mother's apartment had recently been "raided by local police on belief that the residents were engaging in illegal drug use and substance abuse." Grandfather later amended his complaint to allege the police had actually raided A.D.B.'s maternal grandmother's residence. [1] Grandfather voluntarily dismissed this complaint on March 27, 2014. Approximately seven months later, on October 22, 2014, Grandfather filed yet
another complaint seeking lеgal custody of A.D.B. As part of his complaint, Grandfather again alleged that Mother had "engaged in the use of illegal drugs and substances, including, but not limited to, marijuana while in the presence of the minor child." Arguing his most recent complaint seeking legal custody of A.D.B. was frivolous, Mother filed a motion requesting the trial court order Grandfather pay her attorney fees. In response, Grandfather filed a motion requesting Mother be drug tested. A two-day hearing on these matters was heard on September 2 and September
1. The record indicates that the Fairfield Police Department conducted a search of maternal grandmother's residence after receiving an anonymous tip that she was dealing drugs. It is undisputed that Grandfather made the anonymous tip that led to the issuance of the search warrant. No charges were ever filed as a result of the search of maternal grandmother's residence. According to maternal grandmother, Grandfather made the anonymous tip as a form of retaliation.
9, 2015. At this hearing, Grandfather called several witnesses to testify as to Mother's alleged prior drug use, as well as the investigation into the inсident where A.D.B. sustained an injury to her neck. A report from Cincinnati Children's Hospital admitted into evidence classified the injury as an "[a]brasion or friction burn of neck without infection" that could be treated with cold water and antibiotic ointment. Mother, the only witness to the alleged incident, testified that the injury occurred after A.D.B. "put a hangar over her head and was dancing to Dora with it and kind of moved it back and forth on her own neck." No criminal charges were ever brought against Mother regarding this incident as the investigation into Grandfather's allegations of abuse were found to be unsubstantiated. Following this hearing, on September 16, 2015, the trial court issued a decision
denying Grandfather's complaint for legal custody of A.D.B. In so holding, the trial court determined that Grandfather failеd to prove the injury to A.D.B.'s neck "was the result of any cause other than that which was concluded by the staff at Children's Hospital as well as local law enforcement." The trial court also determined that Grandfather had "failed to present any credible evidence as to the Mother's unsuitability." Instead, the trial court found Grandfather's witnesses actually testified that "the Mother and the minor child have a positive relationship, a close emotional bond, and that the Mother takes good care of the minor child." The trial court further denied Grandfather's request to have Mother drug tested and ordered Grandfather to pay Mother's attorney fees upon finding his most recent complaint seeking custody of A.D.B. was frivolous. Grandfather now appeals from the trial court's decision, raising five
assignments of error for review.
Standard of Review Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in custody proceedings. In re E.L.C. , 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-177,
must generally follow R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). Pursuant to that statute:
The court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen sinсe the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child's residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. Although R.C. 3109.04 does not рrovide a definition of the phrase "change in
circumstances," Ohio courts have held that the phrase is intended to denote "an event,
occurrence, or situation which has a material and adverse effect upon a child." Preece v.
Stern , 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2009-09-019,
only if the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child." Hunter-June v.
Pitts , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-09-178,
custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent applies only after a threshold
determination that the child's parents are deemed unsuitable." In re J.T.S. , 12th Dist. Preble
No. CA2014-09-009,
Grandfather's Assignments of Error THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR
DRUG TESTING. In his first assignment of error, Grandfather argues the trial court erred by
denying his motion to have Mother drug tested. In support of this claim, Grandfather alleges
that there is reason to believe Mother uses drugs based on "numerous examplеs with clear
statements of evidence that [she] was involved in drug usage." However, while the record
does contain some testimony to support Grandfather's claims, there was also testimony that
Grandfather's allegations were either untrue or were in reference to events that may have
occurred many months if not years prior. This includes both affidavits attached to
Grandfаther's motion requesting Mother be drug tested, documents that were dated and
signed over two years earlier on February 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, respectively.
It is well-established that the trial court, as the trier of fact, is free to believe all,
part, or none of the testimony of each witness. In re S.C.T. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2004-
04-095,
MICHAEL DICKEY FROM APPEARING ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2015. In his second assignment of error, Grandfather argues the trial court erred by
releasing Fairfield Police Chief Michael Dickey from appearing as a witnesses on the second day of the two-day hearing conducted on September 9, 2015. Yet, the record makes clear that Chief Dickey did appear and testify as part of Grandfather's case-in-chief on September 2, 2015, the first day of the two-day hearing. The reсord also indicates that when asked by the trial court if he was going to conclude his case that day, Grandfather stated "Yes, ma'am." Grandfather then notified the trial court that he would not be calling any additional witnesses to testify besides Father. After a thorough review of the record, we fail to see how the trial court erred in
releasing Chief Dickey as a witness. In so holding, we note thаt Grandfather only provided
this court with a partial transcript of the two-day hearing before the trial court, which did not
include Chief Dickey's testimony, thereby limiting our review of this issue on appeal. "Absent
a full trial transcript, this court must presume the validity of the trial court's determinations[.]"
Bunnell Elec. Inc. v. Ameriwash , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2004-01-009,
DISCUSS HIS INTERVIEW WITH DR. SHAPIRO CONCERNING THE PHOTOS OF THE INJURIES TO MINOR CHILD [A.D.B.]. In his third assignment of error, Grandfather argues the trial court erred by
precluding his witness, Daniel Compston, a former investigator with Butler County Children's Services, from testifying as to statements made by Dr. Robert Shapiro, a physician with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital, during an interview Compston cоnducted with Dr. Shapiro regarding the injuries A.D.B. sustained to her neck. The statements Dr. Shapiro may have made to Compston during this interview are clearly hearsay and were properly excluded by the trial court. Therefore, Grandfather's third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 25} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IGNORING THE CLEAR AND CONCRETE
EVIDENCE AND/OR TESTIMONY AS PERTAINS TO THE UNFIT CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. In his fourth assignment of error, Grandfather argues the trial court's decision
denying his complaint for legal custody of A.D.B. was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. As it relates to a manifest weight of the evidence challenge, "a reviewing court
must determine whether the finder of fact, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, clearly lost
his way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be
reversed and a new trial ordered." In re W.A. , 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2013-0002, 2013-
Ohio-3444, ¶ 19. In making this determination, "'an аppellate court is guided by the
presumption that the trial court's findings were correct.'" In re M.D. , 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2006-09-223,
legal custody, the trial court determined that Grandfather failed to prove the injury A.D.B. sustained to her neck "was the result of any cause other than that which was concluded by the staff at Children's Hospital as well as local law enforcement." The trial court also determined that Grandfather had "failed to present any credible evidence as to the Mother's unsuitability." Instead, the trial court found Grandfather's own witnesses actually testified "the Mother and the minor child have a positive relationship, a close emotional bond, and that the Mother takes good care of the minor child." Again, Grandfather only provided this court with a partial transcript of the two-day hearing before the trial court. Nevertheless, even when reviewing these portions of the record that Grandfather deemed supportive of his claims, we find no error in the trial court's decision. As a nonparent, Grandfather had the burden to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that Mother was an unsuitable parent to A.D.B. However, although Grandfather levied a variety оf accusations against Mother in an attempt to call into question her fitness as a mother, the trial court determined that none of Grandfather's accusations were credible. Again, as the trier of fact, the trial court was free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness. Moreover, just as the trial court found, Grandfather's own witnesses actually tеstified that Mother was a suitable parent to A.D.B. This included testimony that Mother was "good to [A.D.B.]" and that Mother and A.D.B. "love each other very much." Father also testified that Mother was a "a loving caring mother" and that he did not believe Mother caused the injury to A.D.B.'s neck. The trial court's decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. [2] Therefore, Grandfather's fourth assignment оf error is overruled. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPELLEE ATTORNEY FEES. In his fifth assignment of error, Grandfather argues the trial court erred by
granting Mother's motion for attorney fees upon finding his most recent complaint seeking custody of A.D.B. was frivolous. We disagree.
2. It should be noted, even if the trial court had found credible Grandfather's claim that Mother was an unsuitable parent, that would not have automatically entitled Grandfather to custody of A.D.B as he now suggests. Rather, the trial court would still have to find that granting custody of A.D.B. to Grandfather was in the child's best interest.
R.C. 2323.51(B)(1) provides that a court may award costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with a civil action to a party adversely affected by frivolous conduct. As relevant here, pursuant to R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(i) and (iii), thе term "frivolous conduct" includes conduct that satisfies either of the following:
(i) It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including, but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation.
* * *
(iii) The conduct consists of allegatiоns or other factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Reviewing a trial court's decision regarding frivolous conduct involves mixed
questions of law and fact. Lucchesi v. Fischer , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2008-03-023,
finding Grandfather's most recent complaint seeking custody of A.D.B. was frivolous. In so holding, the trial court stated:
The Grandfather failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the abrasion on the minor child's neck was caused in any way other than what the Mother has maintained consistently since the date of the injury. Furthermore, he presented no evidence to refute the testimony and exhibits which established a pattern of harassment and intimidation, directed primarily at the Mother, but also peripherally directed at law enforсement and other professionals who were involved in the investigation. The Court can reach no conclusion other than that the Grandfather * * * engaged in intentional and malicious conduct in an effort to harass and intimated the Mother and her family members. As stated previously, Grandfather only provided this court with a partial
transcript of the two-day hearing held before the triаl court. However, the record before this court clearly indicates that this case represents Grandfather's third attempt to obtain legal custody of A.D.B. based on allegations that Mother is a drug user who abused A.D.B. Once given the opportunity, the trial court determined that these claims had no evidentiary support and served as nothing more than Grandfather's continued attemрts to harass and intimidate Mother. We find no error in the trial court's decision. While it may be true that Grandfather believes he has A.D.B.'s best interest at
heart, repeatedly forcing Mother to spend money on an attorney to defend herself against such claims is improper and unnecessary. Again, while Grandfather may disagree with the investigatory findings, the record clearly indicates that his clаims alleging Mother had abused A.D.B. and caused the injuries to her neck were unsubstantiated. Continually filing complaints for legal custody will not change that fact. Therefore, finding no error in the trial court's decision, Grandfather's fifth assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion Having found no merit to any of Grandfather's five assignments of error, the trial
court's decision denying Grandfather's complaint for legal custody of A.D.B. and ordering Grandfather to pay Mother's attorney fees is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.