In re A.S.

2013 Ohio 4170
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re A.S.. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Ohio 4018
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 2013·No. 26731·Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re A.S., 2013-Ohio-4170.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

IN RE: A.S., JR. C.A. No. 26731

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DN 09-10-0823

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: September 25, 2013

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Petitioner-Appellant, Arvis S., Sr. (“Father”), appeals from the November 21,

2012 judgment entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. We

affirm.

I.

{¶2} A.S., Jr., was born to Stephanie W. (“Mother”) and Father on September 4, 2008.

In 2009, A.S., Jr. was adjudicated dependent, and the juvenile court granted temporary custody

to Summit County Children Services Board. After a brief time in foster care, A.S., Jr. was

placed with Mother’s aunt and uncle, Mary and Carl P. (“Relatives”). The juvenile court later

granted Relatives legal custody, Father appealed, and this Court reversed and remanded to the

court for further proceedings. See In re A.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26462, 2013-Ohio-1975.

{¶3} Father also filed a motion for contempt against Relatives alleging that he was

being denied visitation with A.S., Jr. 2

{¶4} A magistrate of the trial court denied Father’s motion, Father objected, and the

trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision. In adopting the magistrate’s decision, the trial court

held that Father failed to present sufficient evidence that Relatives refused him visitation with

A.S., Jr. Rather, the trial court found that the evidence established that Father failed to exercise

his visitation with A.S., Jr., during the specified time period.

{¶5} Father appealed, raising one assignment of error for our consideration.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION DENYING FATHER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT.

{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court erred in adopting

the magistrate’s decision that denied his motion for contempt. Specifically, Father argues that

the trial court demonstrated an arbitrary and unreasonable attitude in ignoring his undisputed

testimony that Relatives rebuffed his efforts to visit A.S., Jr.

{¶7} “This Court generally reviews a trial court’s action with respect to a magistrate’s

decision for an abuse of discretion.” Melick v. Melick, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26488, 2013-Ohio-

1418, ¶ 5, quoting Young v. Young, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25640, 2011-Ohio-4489, ¶ 5. An

abuse of discretion “implies that the [trial] court’s attitude [was] unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). “Although the trial

court has discretion when finding facts and applying those facts to the law, the trial court

commits an error of law if it does not follow the law.” Foster v. Foster, 9th Dist. Wayne No.

09CA0058, 2010-Ohio-4655, ¶ 6. “Issues of law are reviewed de novo.” Melick at ¶ 5, citing

Butler v. Butler, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22087, 2004-Ohio-7164, ¶ 11. 3

{¶8} “Contempt of court may be defined as disobedience of a court order or conduct

that brings the administration of justice into disrespect or impedes a court’s ability to perform its

functions.” Freeman v. Freeman, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 07CA0036, 2007-Ohio-6400, ¶ 45,

quoting Willis & Linnen Co., L.P.A. v. Linnen, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22452, 2005-Ohio-4934, ¶

17. “Civil contempt is designed to benefit the complainant and is remedial in nature * * *

[through the use of] fines or prison sentences which are conditioned upon performing some act.”

(Internal citations omitted.) Schaffter v. Rush, 9th Dist. Medina No. 04CA0028-M, 2004-Ohio-

6542, ¶ 22. “This [C]ourt will not overturn a lower court’s determination in a contempt

proceeding absent an abuse of discretion.” Malson v. Berger, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22800, 2005-

Ohio-6987, at ¶ 6.

{¶9} Here, Father testified that he was to have visitation with A.S., Jr. every other

weekend and on Wednesdays. However, in September of 2011, Father and Mary P. had a verbal

altercation about Father allegedly keeping A.S., Jr. longer than his court ordered time. After the

altercation, Father claimed that Relatives denied him visitation with A.S., Jr. until January of

2012.

{¶10} Father testified on direct examination as follows:

***

Q. Okay. Was – when you say an altercation, what are we talking about, a verbal argument?

A. A verbal argument, right.

Q. Okay. Who was present when this altercation took place?

A. [Mary P.] was present. Me and her had the conversation. Stephanie [W.] was present and –

Q. And who is Stephanie [W.]?
A. The mother. 4
Q. Okay. The mother of [A.S., Jr.]?
A. Yes. She was present and Toby [W.] was present, another relative of theirs.

Q. Okay. Since that day of the altercation, have you had visits with your son, prior to the time you filed your motion for contempt back in the court here?

A. Once we came back to court, after I missed – I think I was refused like eight visits and then the court suggested that I get a makeup visit and start my visits back. I have been getting them since then.

Q. Okay. What did you do to try and get visits during that time period?
A. Well, I tried contacting by phone, leaving messages. I tried by mail.
Q. So some point in that time period they moved?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you find out their new address?
A. Yes, I did.

Further, on cross-examination, Father testified:

Q. Did you ever present yourself at [Relatives’] house and say I want visitation and they said no?

Q. And when did that happen?
A. This happened the following Wednesday.

*** 5

Q. Answer my question. How many times, after this altercation, to use your term, did you show up—

A. Once.

{¶11} Mother testified that she was present at the time of the verbal altercation between

Father and Mary P., and they were arguing about visitation. Mother also testified that, although

Mary P. told Father to “get off her property,” she did not tell him that he could never come back

on her property.

{¶12} Toby W., Mother’s first cousin, was also present at the time of the verbal

altercation between Father and Mary P. He testified as follows:

Q. Okay. Did [Mary P.]—and I think you said at one point [Mary P.] told [Father] to * * * get off her property?

A. Yeah, because they was arguing. They started arguing.

Q. Okay. So basically [Mary P.] left [Father] with the impression he wasn’t welcome there?

A. No, I ain’t going to say that.
Q. Okay.
A. I ain’t going to say that.
Q. How would you—
A. [Father is] always welcome there.

{¶13} Finally, Carl P. testified that he and Mary P. often allowed Father to have extra

visitation with A.S., Jr., above and beyond what the trial court ordered. He stated that he

believed it was important for Father to spend time with A.S., Jr.:

*** 6

Q.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re A.S., 2013 Ohio 4170 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).

2013 Ohio 4170 (In re A.S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re A.S.
2013 Ohio 1975 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
Young v. Young
2011 Ohio 4489 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Freeman v. Freeman, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2007)
2007 Ohio 6400 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Butler v. Butler, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2004)
2004 Ohio 7164 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
Willis & Linnen Co., L.P.A. v. Linnen
837 N.E.2d 1263 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Blakemore v. Blakemore
450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983)