{¶ 2} Appellants are the paternal grandparents of Courtney King, age seven, and Haley King, age five. Appellees, Bradley King and Stephanie King Hall, are the divorced parents of the children. They have both remarried and have shared parenting of their children.
{¶ 3} Following appellees' separation and divorce, appellants were active in the children's lives, as they were while appellees were married. Appellants would provide child care several days each week, and provided the children with food and clothing as needed. They sometimes took the children to medical appointments and purchased a leg brace for Courtney who has cerebral palsy. They liked to buy gifts for the girls and admittedly "spoiled" them.
{¶ 4} Following the divorce, appellees implemented the shared parenting agreement with some acrimony. During this period, appellants lodged accusations that Stephanie and her new husband physically abused the girls, and that Bradley's stepson had sexually abused Courtney. The allegations were not confirmed, and were only made by appellants. Appellants also made disparaging remarks about Stephanie in front of the children, in spite of Bradley's protests. Appellees determined that appellants' continuing accusations were in large part responsible for their own inability to communicate regarding the shared parenting plan. They jointly decided to eliminate appellants' visits with the children. Appellees subsequently observed that they were able to communicate better, and the shared parenting plan has since been followed with little controversy. Appellees agree that eliminating appellants' visits is in the children's best interest. Appellees jointly advised appellants of their decision in April 2005.
{¶ 5} In May 2005, appellants filed a motion seeking visitation with the children. A hearing was held on the motion at which appellees presented testimony confirming their agreement that it is in the children's best interest not to have contact with appellants. Appellants testified to suffering emotional stress as a result of appellees' decision, and testified that they want their grandchildren to be a part of their lives. The trial court denied the motion, and appellants appeal, raising two assignments of error.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION."
{¶ 8} An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's determination regarding visitation issues absent an abuse of discretion. In re McCaleb, Butler App. No. CA2003-01-012,
{¶ 9} When determining whether to grant visitation rights to a nonparent, the trial court is required to consider the 15 factors listed in R.C.
{¶ 10} There is a presumption that "fit parents act in the best interests of their children." Troxel v. Granville (2000),
{¶ 11} In its decision, the trial court evaluated the R.C.
{¶ 12} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. R.C.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM UPON [APPELLANT'S] MOTION."
{¶ 15} In this assignment of error, appellants contend that the trial court erred when it declined to appoint a guardian ad litem ("GAL") to represent the best interests of the children. Appellants argue that pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 16} R.C.
{¶ 17} In the instant case, however, appellants, while parties to the action, are not parents. Appellants' assertion that they need only be a party to the case to demand the appointment of a GAL is a mischaracterization of the statute. "The language used in R.C. §
{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.
Young and Bressler, JJ., concur.