Davidson v. Hodge , 2023 Ohio 1638 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Davidson v. Hodge, 2023-Ohio-1638.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
ANGELA DAVIDSON, : APPEAL NO. C-220241
TRIAL NO. F20-573X
Appellant, :
vs. :
MARK HODGE, : O P I N I O N.
Appellee. :
Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 17, 2023
Law Offices of Nicholas A. Kulik, LLC, and Nicholas A. Kulik, for Appellant,
Eric L. Anderson, for Appellee.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Angela Davidson (“Mother”) challenges the juvenile court’s
order granting legal custody of her two children, K.H. and L.H., to appellee Mark
Hodge (“Father”).1 In two assignments of error, she contests the juvenile court’s
findings regarding two of the statutory factors guiding its analysis of the children’s
best interest under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). But because the juvenile court’s findings are
supported by competent and credible evidence, we affirm its decision.
I. Facts and Procedure
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of K.H. and L.H. While
Mother and Father were never married, the four lived as a family in Ohio.
{¶3} In June 2020, Mother and Father were drinking and “got into a heated
argument” about relocating the family to Hawaii. The night culminated with Father
throwing a piece of furniture through a window. Following that argument, Mother
moved into her mother’s (“Maternal Grandmother”) home in Kentucky for a brief
period. Father moved for a preliminary injunction in the juvenile court to prevent the
children’s relocation. Days later, Mother moved to Hawaii with the children and
Maternal Grandmother.
{¶4} Months before she moved the children to Hawaii with Maternal
Grandmother, Mother had purchased four one-way airplane tickets to Hawaii. And
one month before the move, Mother signed a lease for an apartment in Hawaii with a
move-in date of June 15. Father’s name was not on the lease.
1We take this opportunity to remind all parties that App.R. 16(A)(6) and (D) require a statement
of facts with appropriate references to the record. And we have explained that “[t]o receive
consideration on appeal, trial-court errors must be argued and supported by citation to the record.”
Berger v. Wade, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120863, 2014-Ohio-1262, ¶ 25. While this court could
have refused to consider Mother’s arguments based solely on her failure to provide appropriate
citations to the record, in the interest of fairness, we decide this case on the merits.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} When Mother returned to Cincinnati with the children for the holidays
in December 2020, Father unsuccessfully petitioned the juvenile court for emergency
custody of the children. But weeks later, the magistrate granted Father interim custody
of the children and ordered their return to Ohio. The children lived with Father
beginning in February 2021 and continued, through remote access, attending school
in Hawaii until the end of the school year.
{¶6} At a June 2021 custody hearing, the magistrate heard testimony from
Father, Mother, and their friends, family members, and neighbors. In addition, the
parties introduced pictures, videos, receipts, insurance cards, bank statements, text
messages, discovery responses, pay stubs, Mother’s lease, and a Niche.com evaluation
of K.H.’s elementary school in Hawaii. In January 2022, the magistrate ordered that
the children be placed in Mother’s legal custody. Father objected. The juvenile court
held oral arguments in April 2022 and the parties entered additional evidence into the
record, including supplemental testimony from Mother and Father. The following
month, the juvenile court held an in-camera interview with 11-year-old K.H.
{¶7} The juvenile court set aside the magistrate’s order as “not supported by
the evidence and not in accordance with the law.” The juvenile court considered the
best-interest factors set forth under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) in a thorough analysis of the
facts of the case. While the juvenile court made clear that both parents are bonded
with the children and “appropriate and loving parents,” the juvenile court found that
several statutory factors weighed in favor of granting Father custody of the children.
{¶8} First, K.H. wanted to remain in Ohio with Father. See R.C.
3109.04(F)(1)(b). Relevant here, the court considered the children’s relationships and
found that 1.) the children’s friends and family remain in Ohio, 2.) the children have
no significant social connections in Hawaii, and 3.) the distance between the parents
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
would hinder the children’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. See R.C.
3109.04(F)(1)(c). The juvenile court found that the children were well adjusted to their
home, school, and community in Ohio, and questioned whether the children had
adjusted to life in Hawaii due, in part, to the Covid-related closures and precautions.
See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d). The juvenile court found that the children required no
adjustment to remain in Ohio but found that “the children would require an
adjustment to no longer living in the home they always had in Ohio as well as no longer
living with Father.” In addition, the juvenile court found that Mother relocated to
Hawaii, in part, because of its beauty and it was better suited to what she was looking
for in life. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(j).
{¶9} Ultimately, the juvenile court concluded that remaining in Ohio with
Father was in the best interest of the children because Father offered stability and the
least amount of disruption to the children’s lives. The juvenile court awarded Father
legal custody of the children and granted Mother parenting time during the summer.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶10} Mother challenges the juvenile court’s custody award in two
assignments of error. Specifically, she argues that the juvenile court abused its
discretion when it concluded that awarding custody of the children to Father was in
the children’s best interest. In support of her argument, she disputes the juvenile
court’s analysis of two statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04(F).
{¶11} Custody decisions “are some of the most difficult and agonizing” that a
juvenile court must make, particularly when the decision concerns two loving parents,
as is the case here. See Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159(1997). The juvenile court exercises broad discretion when allocating parental rights
and responsibilities in a custody dispute. Owens v. Owens, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
210488, 2022-Ohio-3450, ¶ 31, citing Cwik v. Cwik, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090843,
2011-Ohio-463, ¶ 41, citing Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 523 N.E.2d 846(1988). Our review is highly deferential in light of the juvenile court’s discretionary
authority, the nature of the proceeding, and the intimate knowledge gained by
observing the witnesses and parties. Id., quoting Cwik at ¶ 41, quoting Miller at 74.
Because the juvenile court has “the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude,
and credibility of each witness,” we presume that its findings are correct. Bohannon v.
Lewis, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210316 and C-210332, 2022-Ohio-2398, ¶ 15,
quoting Davis at 418.
{¶12} We therefore review the juvenile court’s decision for an abuse of
discretion. Id. at ¶ 14. A juvenile court abuses its discretion when its decision is
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). While we review for an abuse of discretion, we may
not simply substitute our judgment for the juvenile court’s even if we would have
reached a different conclusion regarding the children’s best interest. Berk v.
Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169, 559 N.E.2d 1301 (1990).
{¶13} In Ohio, a child’s best interest is paramount when a court determines
custody matters and allocates parental rights and responsibilities. See R.C.
3109.04(A)(1). To determine the best interest of the children, the juvenile court must
consider a nonexhaustive list of statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). R.C.
3109.04(B)(1).
{¶14} Mother does not contest that the juvenile court carefully considered,
and thoroughly analyzed, the relevant statutory factors. Instead, she contests two of
the juvenile court’s findings under two best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). In
Mother’s view, the juvenile court’s analysis of the children’s interactions and
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
interrelationships under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c) is unreasonable and lacks evidentiary
support. Next, she disputes the juvenile court’s conclusion under R.C.
3109.04(F)(1)(d) that the children were not adjusted to their home, school, and
community in Hawaii.
Children’s Interactions and Interrelationships
{¶15} The juvenile court must consider the “child[ren]’s interaction[s] and
interrelationship[s] with [their] parents, siblings, and any other person who may
significantly affect the[ir] best interest.” R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c). The juvenile court
made several factual findings in its lengthy analysis of the children’s interactions and
interrelationships. Mother does not dispute that the children have numerous family
members and friends in Ohio, where they have lived for most of their lives. Rather,
Mother challenges three findings by the juvenile court, which suggest that the
children’s interactions and interrelationships are stronger in Ohio than in Hawaii. To
that end, she claims the juvenile court’s findings lack evidentiary support and are the
product of an unsound reasoning process.
{¶16} First, Mother disputes the juvenile court’s determination that “[b]oth
parents were actively involved in raising the children.” The court explained that while
Mother took on a greater share of the childcare responsibilities, “Father was the
primary financial provider for the family and Mother had more time available to care
for the children at times.” Mother disagrees and asserts that she was the primary
caretaker and at times the sole caretaker, as well as the primary financial provider for
the children. But long-time family friends testified that Father has always been a
hands-on and active parent to the children, who adore him. Long-time neighbors in
Ohio described Father as a patient and good parent and recalled consistently seeing
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
him with the children in the yard. And according to the children’s paternal
grandmother, Father was actively involved in the children’s care.
{¶17} Father stated that Mother “always took care of the medical
appointments” and carried the children’s health insurance. And Mother testified that
she was responsible for morning and nighttime childcare after K.H.’s birth. But she
also testified that Father assisted with childcare at times and was the sole financial
provider following L.H.’s birth. And according to Mother’s testimony, Father covered
childcare costs after Mother returned to work and would assist in dropping L.H. off at
daycare. Likewise, Maternal Grandmother testified that Father transported the
children to her house in Northern Kentucky when Mother worked. Even Mother’s
long-time friend testified that Father is “really good, hands-on with [the children].” In
sum, the evidence makes clear that both parents provided for the care of the children.
Therefore, this finding is supported by competent and credible evidence.
{¶18} Second, Mother disputes the juvenile court’s finding that “[t]he
children do not have any known social connections in Hawaii that are of significance,
though they have some familiarity with some of Mother’s friends.” She claims that the
children started to develop meaningful relationships in Hawaii. Yet, Mother testified
that K.H. was frustrated that there were no girls in their Hawaii neighborhood to play
with and “unfortunately didn’t have the opportunity to--she did have a good friend in
school but didn’t get an opportunity to fully interact with them because of the
pandemic.” And we note that K.H. and L.H. might possibly develop lasting friendships
and relationships in Hawaii. But numerous witnesses described their many existing
friendships in Ohio, including K.H. in her in-camera interview. More to the point,
“[the] child[ren]’s best interest for allocating rights and responsibilities is based on
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
present circumstances, not on what possibly may happen in the future.” Seibert v.
Seibert, 66 Ohio App.3d 342, 584 N.E.2d 41 (12th Dist.1990).
{¶19} Third, Mother disagrees with the juvenile court’s conclusion that, “[I]f
the parties remain where they presently are, the children will not be able to maintain
as close of a relationship with the other parent, regardless of who receives custody, due
to the physical distance involved.” Again, the evidence supports the juvenile court’s
finding. The children’s paternal grandmother testified that “there was such a small
window of opportunity to connect” with the children when they were living in Hawaii
due to the time change. Likewise, Father described how the geographic and time
distances limited his ability to communicate with the children in Hawaii.
{¶20} All told, the juvenile court’s findings and analysis of the children’s
interrelationships and interactions under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c) are supported by
competent and credible evidence in the record. Thus, the juvenile court’s findings do
not constitute an abuse of discretion. We overrule Mother’s first assignment of error.
The Children Were Adjusted To Life In Ohio
{¶21} In her second assignment of error, Mother disagrees with the juvenile
court’s findings regarding the children’s adjustments to their home, school, and
community under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d). The juvenile court analyzed the children’s
experiences in both Ohio and Hawaii and concluded that remaining in Ohio required
less adjustment for the children. Mother disagrees.
{¶22} Beginning with the children’s adjustment to school, the juvenile court
found that K.H. was well adjusted to school and the community in Ohio, and that L.H.
was not school aged when he lived in Hawaii. In particular, the juvenile court found
that while K.H. performed better at her Hawaiian elementary school, “[T]here were
questions related to the quality of education she was receiving and if she was being
8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
challenged equally when comparing the Ohio and Hawaii schools.” Mother claims that
there was no evidence of the quality of curriculum or instruction in Hawaii. But in her
in-camera interview, K.H. informed the juvenile court that she was “relearning the
basics of like first grade and second grade,” specifically money and counting. And K.H.
preferred attending a more challenging school in Ohio. Still more, Mother described
K.H.’s elementary school in Hawaii as “a bit lower rated” and “not as good as the school
that they were enrolled in [Ohio].” Mother’s own testimony refutes her claim that the
juvenile court’s findings lack evidentiary support.
{¶23} Turning to the children’s adjustment to the community, the juvenile
court found that, in Ohio, the children “routinely played with a network of friends”
and participated in extracurricular activities. In contrast, the juvenile court found that
the children “have not adjusted to their school and community in Hawaii.” The
juvenile court acknowledged that while the children “did not require an adjustment to
living with Mother and Maternal Grandmother,” the children would have to adjust to
no longer living with Father in Ohio and “appeared to miss certain people that were
no longer able to be a routine part of their lives while they were in Hawaii.” Once again,
we need to look no further than Mother’s own testimony, who stated that K.H. missed
Father when she was in Hawaii. And K.H.’s paternal grandmother described her as
“sad and withdrawn” in Hawaii.
{¶24} While Mother acknowledges that relocating to Hawaii would require
some adjustment by the children, she argues that the court failed to consider the
children’s adjustment upon returning to Ohio without Mother. But the juvenile court
recognized that living in Ohio with Father without Mother and Maternal Grandmother
would be an adjustment for the children but noted that the children “appear to be
doing well” following their return to Ohio.
9
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶25} Finally, Mother contends that the juvenile court ignored the possible
benefits of living in Hawaii. Specifically, she emphasizes the importance of
experiencing diverse environments and cultures during the children’s formative years.
Diversity and cultural experiences may assist with the development of a child’s
character. But we cannot ignore the countervailing facts and statutory factors
supporting the juvenile court’s conclusion that granting Father custody of the children
was in their best interest. Plus, no one statutory factor controls the juvenile court’s
best-interest determination. In re L.L., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200058, 2020-Ohio-
5609, ¶ 8. And we have explained that “the weight to be given to any factor lies within
the trial court’s discretion.” Id. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion and overrule
Mother’s second assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
{¶26} We overrule Mother’s two assignments of error and affirm the juvenile
court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
10