SETH T. SAVAGE, Petitioner 1-Appellee, v. SANDRA M. SAVAGE, Petitioner 2-Appellant.
Case No. 15CA856
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY
RELEASED: 12/14/2015
[Cite as Savage v. Savage, 2015-Ohio-5290.]
Harsha, J.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Matthew F. Loesch, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellant.
Deborah Douglas Barrington, Chillicothe, Ohio, for appellee.
Harsha, J.
{¶1} Following a dissolution in which Seth T. Savage (“Savage“) and Sandra M. Savage nka Thacker (“Thacker“) were granted shared parenting of their two minor children, each parent filed motions to be named residential parent for school purposes. At a hearing on the motions the parties stipulated to the admission of the guardian ad litem‘s report as a joint exhibit. The court determined that it would be in the best interest of the children to designate their father as the residential parent for school purposes and to remain enrolled in school in the Western Local School District. Therefore, the court designated Savage as the residential parent of the children for school purposes. Thacker appealed.
{¶2} In her first assignment of error Thacker asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in considering the guardian ad litem‘s report because it did not comply with the standards set forth in
{¶3} In her second assignment of error Thacker contends that the trial court‘s decision to grant residential-parent status to Savage for school purposes was against the manifest weight of the evidence and did not appropriately consider the best-interest factors in
{¶4} Because the trial court did not commit error in designating Savage as the residential parent of their children for school purposes, we affirm its judgment.
I. FACTS
{¶5} Savage and Thacker, who were married in 2005, had two children: Jenna, born in 2006, and Eli, born in 2007. In 2010 they petitioned for a dissolution of their marriage. In 2011 the Pike County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division granted the dissolution and adopted the parties’ shared parenting plan, in which the parties agreed to each have 3 1/2 days per week with the children, that the Huntington School District would be the school district for the children, and that both
{¶6} In 2013 Thacker filed a motion to terminate shared parenting. In the alternative, she requested that she be designated the residential parent for school purposes. Savage filed a motion requesting that he be designated the residential parent for school purposes and that the children remain in the Western Local School District that they have always attended. In 2014 Thacker filed a motion to designate her the residential parent for school placement purposes. After the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem for the parties’ children, he filed a report and recommendation.
{¶7} In his report the guardian ad litem noted that the parties had remarried since their dissolution and that Thacker had relocated to the Northwest Local School District in Scioto County. At the time of their dissolution the parties resided in Pike County and agreed that the children would attend the Huntington School District. However, the parties later agreed that the children would instead attend Western Local School District in Pike County, and the parties undertook a week-to-week visitation plan in which they exchanged custody of the children every week. Savage has remarried, has a new child, and works road construction half of the year and is laid off during the winter. Thacker is unemployed.
{¶8} The guardian ad litem met with the principal of the school the children attended, and she described Eli as a vibrant boy who loves school and his classmates, interacts well with teachers and other students, and does not have any significant attendance issues. Jenna had been held back and repeated first grade due to maturity issues. The principal described Jenna as slightly below average in reading and having
{¶9} The parties withdrew several portions of their motions so that the only remaining issue was which parent should be designated residential parent for school purposes of the children, i.e., whether the children would remain in the Western Local School District in Pike County where Savage lived or would enroll in the Northwest Local School District in Scioto County, where Thacker lived.
{¶10} At the hearing the parties stipulated to the admission of the guardian ad litem‘s report and recommendation as a joint exhibit. Thacker testified that she believed that both children were doing alright, but struggling. She felt that the Northwest Local School District was better than the Western Local School District and provided more focus on educational achievement, including a higher graduation rate, and extracurricular activities that were not provided at Western. According to Thacker, it was in the children‘s best interest to place them in the Northwest Local School District and it was detrimental to them to leave them in the Western Local School District. Jenna was undergoing mental-health counseling at Shawnee Mental Health in Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat her hyperactivity.
{¶11} Conversely, Savage testified that Eli was doing well in school and that although Jenna was behind in her reading, she was getting help and was improving. He
{¶12} In its decision the trial court designated Savage the residential parent of the children for school purposes. The trial court determined that after “[h]aving considered all relevant factors,” it was in the best interest of the minor children for the father to be designated as residential parent of them for school purposes and for the children to attend school in the Western Local School District in Pike County. This appeal followed.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶13} Thacker assigns the following errors:
- The Trial Court abused its discretion in considering the Guardian ad litem‘s report due to the report falling below the standards promulgated by Superintenden[ce] Rule 48.
- The Trial Court‘s decision to grant residential parent status to the Appellee was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence under ORC 3109.04.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Invited Error
{¶14} In her first assignment of error Thacker asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in considering the guardian ad litem‘s report because it did not comply with
{¶16} ” ‘Under [the invited-error] doctrine, a party is not entitled to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the court to make.’ ” Martin v. Jones, 2015-Ohio-3168, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 2 (4th Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 494, 2002-Ohio-4849, 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27; Faulks v. Flynn, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 13CA3568, 2014-Ohio-1610, ¶ 22; State v. Misconsin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93429, 2010-Ohio-4475, ¶ 23 (party‘s stipulation to the admission of exhibit invited any error arising out of it).
{¶17} By stipulating to the admission of the report, Thacker waived any error in its admission instead of merely forfeiting it by failing to timely assert an objection. See generally State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 20-21, discussing the difference between waiver and forfeiture. Because even plain error is waived if error is invited, Martin at ¶ 2, citing State v. Rohrbaugh, 126 Ohio St.3d 421, 2010-Ohio-3286, 934 N.E.2d 920, ¶ 10, we overrule Thacker‘s first assignment of error.
B. Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶18} In her second assignment of error Thacker contends that the trial court failed to properly analyze and interpret the best-interest standards of
{¶19} The original dissolution decree named the Huntington Local School District as the school district for the children and both parents residential parents when they had physical custody of the children. Thus the trial court‘s designation of Savage
{¶20} Thacker does not challenge either the first or third requirements for modification. Therefore, we need not address this part of the trial court‘s judgment. Instead, Thacker challenges the trial court‘s determination that the best interests of the children justified the designation of Savage as the residential parent for school purposes so that they continue to be enrolled in the Western Local School District.
{¶21} Absent an abuse of discretion a reviewing court will not reverse a trial court‘s decision regarding child custody matters; when an award is supported by a substantial amount of credible, competent evidence, the award will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21, 550 N.E.2d 178 (1990), syllabus; Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). We have applied this general standard of review in determining a challenge to a trial court‘s designation of a residential parent for school purposes. See Sheridan v. Hagglund, 4th Dist. Meigs No. 13CA6, 2014-Ohio-4031, ¶ 29-41.
{¶22} When—as here—a party does not request
{¶23} Because Thacker did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with
{¶24} Moreover, the record contained competent, credible evidence to support the trial court‘s designation of Savage as the residential parent of the children for school purposes. The guardian ad litem recommended that the children remain in the Western Local School District, and Savage testified that the children were comfortable in the school district, where they knew everybody, including relatives. According to Savage‘s testimony, Eli was doing well in school and Jenna was receiving help and improving.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶26} Thacker has not proven that the trial court committed prejudicial error in designating Savage the residential parent of the children for school purposes. Having overruled Thacker‘s assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED and that Appellant shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Pike County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hoover, P.J. & McFarland, A.J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY: ________________________________
William H. Harsha, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.