Lucas v. Byers

[Cite as Lucas v. Byers, 2021-Ohio-246.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
JASON C. LUCAS, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NOS. 2020-L-010
- vs - : 2020-L-049
2020-L-050
LINDSAY N. BYERS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Appeals from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No.
2016 CV 00054.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Kenneth J. Cahill, Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 60 South Park Place, Painesville,
OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Joseph G. Stafford and Nicole A. Cruz, Stafford Law Co., LPA, 55 Erieview Plaza, 5th
Floor, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellant).
Cory R. Hinton, Hanahan & Hinton, LLC, 8570 Mentor Ave., Mentor, OH 44060
(Guardian ad litem).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Lindsay N. Byers (“mother”), appeals from the judgment of the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, designating Jason C. Lucas
(“father”) sole residential parent and legal custodian of the parties’ minor son, D.L. She
also appeals the trial court’s judgment denying her motion to modify visitation. We affirm
the judgments of the trial court.
{¶2} In January 2016, father filed a complaint requesting allocation of parental
rights and responsibilities. The matter proceeded to hearing which resulted in a January
18, 2017 order naming mother residential parent for school purposes. On May 11, 2018,
father moved the trial court to designate him the sole residential parent and legal
custodian of the minor child. The parties filed voluminous motions subsequent to father’s
May 2018 filing. Ultimately, on December 7, 2018, father filed an ex parte motion for
immediate temporary sole residential placement and legal custody. A pretrial conference
was held on December 12, 2018, at which the parties and the guardian ad litem (“GAL”)
indicated they had reached an agreement regarding custody. And, an agreed judgment
entry was subsequently filed.
{¶3} After mother’s counsel had withdrawn, new counsel filed a motion to vacate
the previous agreed entry, which was granted on March 19, 2019. The matter then
proceeded to a 13-day bench trial on, inter alia, father’s May 11, 2018 motion. Following
trial, the trial court issued an order which found the circumstances had changed since the
initial allocation of parental rights; the court additionally concluded D.L.’s best interests
would be served by designating father the sole residential parent and legal custodian.
The court also ordered mother to have supervised visitation with D.L. Mother appealed
and on December 14, 2020, this court released its judgment and opinion affirming the trial
court. See Lucas v. Byers, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2020-L-010, 2020-L-049, and 2020-L-
050, 2020-Ohio-6679. Mother subsequently filed an application for reconsideration,
which this court granted. We now proceed to address mother’s six assignments of error
in light of that determination. The first assigned error provides:
2
{¶4} “The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in granting
father’s motion to designate father sole residential parent and legal custodian and in its
allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.”
{¶5} Under this assignment of error, mother first argues father failed to
demonstrate a change of circumstances arising since the prior decree. Mother contends
father simply relied upon redundant allegations of medical abuse and falsification of
medical records, which the trial court had previously rejected. The record, however, does
not support mother’s claim.
{¶6} A judgment involving the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities will
not be disturbed save an abuse of discretion. Wren v. Tutolo, 11th Dist. Geauga No.
2012-G-3104, 2013-Ohio-995, ¶8. The phrase “abuse of discretion” is one of art,
connoting judgment exercised by a court, which does not comport with reason or the
record. Gaul v. Gaul, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2009-A-0011, 2010-Ohio-2156, ¶24. In
determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion, a reviewing court is not to
weigh the evidence, but, rather, must determine from the record whether there is some
competent, credible evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court. Clyborn v.
Clyborn, 93 Ohio App.3d 192, 196 (3d Dist.1994). In rendering its decision, the trial court
is in the best position to observe the witnesses, “which cannot be conveyed to a reviewing
court by a printed record.” Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988). Moreover, given
these points, we are “‘guided by the presumption that the trial court's findings were indeed
correct.’” Id.; see also Foxhall v. Lauderdale, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0006, 2011-
Ohio-6213, ¶26, quoting Bates-Brown v. Brown, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2006-T-0089,
3
2007-Ohio-5203, ¶18 (“decisions involving the custody of children are ‘accorded great
deference on review.’”).
{¶7} R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) contains various provisions pertaining to modification
of parenting plans. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) states that:
{¶8} 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 since 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.
In applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential
parent designated by the prior decree or the prior shared parenting
decree, unless a modification is in the best interest of the child and
one of the following applies:
{¶9} (i) The residential parent agrees to a change in the residential parent
or both parents under a shared parenting decree agree to a change
in the designation of residential parent.
{¶10} (ii) The child, with the consent of the residential parent or of both
parents under a shared parenting decree, has been integrated into
the family of the person seeking to become the residential parent.
{¶11} (iii) The harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the
child.
{¶12} In Janecek v. Marschall, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-136, 2015-Ohio-941,
this court held that a trial court modifying a prior decree allocating parental rights and
responsibilities pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E) is required to make a specific finding that a
change of circumstances had occurred. See id. at ¶18. The Ohio Supreme Court has held
that the requisite change of circumstances “must be a change of substance, not a slight
or inconsequential change.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997). “In
determining whether a change of circumstances has occurred, the trial court has great
4
latitude in considering all evidence before it.” Makuch v. Bunce, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-
L-016, 2007-Ohio-6242, ¶12, citing In re M.B., 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2006-CA-6, 2006-
Ohio-3756, at ¶9.
{¶13} In this matter, the previous, January 18, 2017 order was premised upon
various pleadings, the first of which was father’s motion to allocate parenting rights and
responsibilities. In that motion, father asserted mother was denying him visitation and
preventing him access to D.L.’s medical records. Although the magistrate’s decision
discussed, at length, the parties’ disagreement regarding potential food allergies and
each party’s differing approach towards this issue, nothing in that decision or the trial
court’s decision suggests the concerns raised by father in the subsequent, May 2018
motion were merely reiterations of those in the previous litigation. While there may have
been some overlap in the concerns father voiced in each motion, the concerns advanced
in the May 2018 pleading (and each subsequent motion filed) related to allegations which
post-dated the January order. In this respect, father’s allegations in the underlying matter
are not redundant and thus cannot be deemed res judicata.
{¶14} Next, mother asserts father failed to establish a change of circumstances
because he did not submit sufficient documentation that mother had made abuse
allegations against him. She further contends father’s allegation that mother subjected
the child to excessive and unnecessary medical visits was unsubstantiated and against
the weight of the evidence.
{¶15} Initially, testimonial evidence was adduced that mother had leveled abuse
allegations, ranging from emotional, physical, medical, as well as sexual abuse of the
parties’ son. And, the report submitted by the GAL, Attorney Cory Hinton, listed multiple
5
collateral sources, including medical professionals, to whom mother had related the
allegations. Counsel for mother had an opportunity to cross-examine the GAL and Dr.
Deborah Koricke, a clinical and forensic psychologist appointed by the court to do a
custody evaluation. Nothing in their testimony indicated the abuse allegations, which had
occurred and persisted since the previous litigation, did not occur. We therefore conclude
father was not obligated to provide formal documentation of mother’s allegations and the
trial judge was entitled to assess the credibility of the witness’ testimony, as well as the
reports submitted into evidence, in its change-of-circumstance analysis.
{¶16} Evidence was adduced that the child was being seen by a sexual-abuse
counselor and mother had made numerous calls to children’s services; notably, however,
no investigation was ever initiated. In March 2018, after staying with father, mother
alleged the child’s buttocks was red and D.L. purportedly told her that father put a pen in
his anus. According to the GAL, mother reported the alleged abuse to police. After an
investigation, during which a rape test was administered, the prosecutor declined to
pursue the matter. Mother also asserted she has noticed sexualized behavior from the
child; she claimed the child will not keep his pants on and places objects around his
privates. According to Amanda Eggert of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, however,
D.L. did not act out in a sexualized manner.
{¶17} Mother asserted she has continued to take D.L. to various doctors because
she noticed anal inflammation. She believed this is related to, inter alia, father’s failure
to adhere to a diet consistent with D.L.’s food allergies. In particular, on the evening of
May 2, 2018, D.L. returned from weekend-parenting time with father and he was bleeding
from his anus. Mother stated that the next day she took the child to the emergency room
6
which led to a follow-up treatment with Dr. Joshua Friedman, a pediatrician. Dr. Friedman
testified that the child had inflammation of the intestine, which could cause rectal bleeding;
he also indicated sexual abuse could not be ruled out. Dr. Friedman stated, however, his
observations did not specifically implicate father in any wrongdoing.
{¶18} During his meetings with mother, the GAL stated mother repeated her
concerns that father was harming the child by either feeding him allergens and/or sexually
abusing him. Mother additionally had concerns that father was physically abusing D.L.
As a result, the GAL noted mother continued to seek significant medical treatment and
enroll the child in therapy/counseling. Mother also related she hired a private investigator
to look into what foods father was feeding the child.
{¶19} Father asserted that, prior to the January 2018 order awarding mother
custody, mother attempted to have him arrested for physically abusing their son.
According to father, she engaged in other actions which were designed to suggest he
was not a fit father. After the January 2018 entry, father noted mother’s allegations
escalated; she began claiming he was sexually abusing or harming their son by
sodomizing the child with a pen. After being investigated, no charges or further attention
was given to the allegations by authorities. Father opined that mother’s actions are a
continuing effort to keep him out of the child’s life. He expressed his concern that mother
will persist with similar allegations. Indeed, he related to Dr. Koricke that he feared mother
might flee the court’s jurisdiction with the child. The evidence, in general, supported much
of father’s observations because, over time, mother’s actions had become progressively
more serious; to wit, mother has accused him of neglect, endangering D.L., physical
7
abuse, medical neglect, and finally sexual abuse. None of her allegations, however, were
confirmed.
{¶20} Father told Dr. Koricke that mother had taken D.L. to over 200 doctor’s
appointments. On cross-examination, he clarified that rather than “appointments,” he
meant “encounters,” e.g., appointments as well as phone consults and the like.
Regardless, father expressed frustration and concern regarding the volume of medical
appointments to which mother subjected D.L.; he pointed out that, in his estimation,
mother was attempting to condition D.L. to fear him.
{¶21} The GAL ultimately concluded shared-parenting is not in D.L.’s best
interest. He stated:
{¶22} An important aspect of my initial investigation was to try and
determine if I could find evidence that Father was in fact physically
abusing the child, purposefully feeding him foods which would harm
him, and/or sexually abusing the child. * * * I was unable to find any
substantial evidence other than what Mother could testify to. While I
cannot rule anything out, I did not discover any collaborating
evidence that Father was harming [D.L.] physically, by the
administration of certain foods, or by sexually abusing him.
{¶23} * * *
{¶24} The condition of [D.L.’s] anus has been a point of heightened conflict
in this case. Since [D.L.], who just turned four, is not at
daycare/preschool four days a week and with paternal grandfather
once a week on Fridays, there are unlikely additional individuals
assisting [D.L.] using the restroom. It has not been brought to my
attention during the interview with the daycare/preschool provider or
based on my review of the daycare/preschool’s records that there
are any issues with [D.L.’s] anus. I recently spoke with [D.L.’s]
pediatrician who had just got done examining [D.L.] for a checkup
the day I spoke with him. Dr. Norr[, the pediatrician,] did not express
any concerns over [D.L.’s] anus. What Dr. Norr was able to confirm
is that [D.L.] is currently allergy free. Thus, it is clear that from a
factual perspective, there appears to be some closure as to one of
the major points of contention between the parties (i.e. [D.L.’s] anus
being irritated as a result of sexual abuse or eating incorrect foods).
8
{¶25} The GAL went on to recommend that father be designated D.L.’s legal
custodial parent.
{¶26} Similarly, Dr. Koricke submitted her report to the court and was extensively
cross-examined on the same. Defense counsel utilized the report as an exhibit; at the
end of trial, however, counsel withdrew the exhibit. Still, the record reflects that Dr.
Koricke opined, with reasonable psychological certainty, that father should be named the
primary and sole custodian of the child.
{¶27} “R.C. 3109.04 does not define ‘changes in circumstances’; however, courts
have generally held the phrase to note ‘an event, occurrence, or situation which has a
material and adverse effect upon a child.’” Lindman v. Geissler, 171 Ohio App.3d 650,
2007-Ohio-2003, ¶33 (5th Dist.) citing, Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599,
604-605 (7th Dist.2000). In In re R.A.S., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-09-102, 2012-
Ohio-2260, the court was faced with similar facts. The court stated:
{¶28} The record is clear that Mother engaged in a pattern of accusing
Father, and those associated with him, of sexually abusing R.A.S.,
and that the accusations increased since Father’s 2009 custody
motion was denied.
{¶29} As previously stated, Father presented evidence of Mother’s
accusations, and that each allegation was deemed unsubstantiated.
Mother has taken R.A.S. to Children's Medical Center on four
separate occasions, and on each occasion, R.A.S. was subjected to
a physical exam. Mother has made 13 referrals to Greene County
Children's Services, alleging in each that Father, or those associated
with him, sexually abused R.A.S. The child has been subjected to
four different forensic interviews in which he was questioned about
the sexual abuse allegations. Mother has also made six allegations
to the Yellow Springs Chief of Police that Father was molesting
R.A.S. Mother also took R.A.S. to three different child psychologists
for therapy related to the sexual abuse allegations. None of the
county agencies, law enforcement, physical exams, forensic
interviews, or psychological evaluations have led to Father being
9
charged for sexually abusing R.A.S., and instead, Mother’s
allegations were found to be unsubstantiated on each occasion.
{¶30} This court is not saying that a parent is wrong to stalwartly protect its
child if there is a belief the child is the victim of sexual abuse. Quite
conversely, a parent is encouraged to seek the help of agencies,
medical experts, or law enforcement to investigate allegations of
sexual abuse. However, this case is particularly unique in that Mother
continued to accuse Father of sexually abusing R.A.S. after multiple
initial allegations went unsubstantiated and no charges were
brought. There are at least 30 different documented allegations
against Father, and on each occasion, Mother knew that the
allegations were unsubstantiated. This case is so extreme that at the
time of trial, Green County Children Services had an open
investigation against Mother, alleging emotional maltreatment of
R.A.S. based on Mother involving the child in repeated
unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.
{¶31} The unsubstantiated allegations have a greater impact on the
change of circumstances determination beyond the mere fact that
Mother has made them. Mother’s pattern of making the claims is
compounded by the fact that she continually involves R.A.S. in the
process of investigating the allegations. R.A.S. has been subjected
to several invasive exams and interviews, and the impact of such
repetitive investigations on a young child is patently detrimental.
Moreover, Mother would speak about the sexual abuse allegations
to other people in the community, and would speak of the adult-
issues surrounding the investigations in the presence of R.A.S.
{¶32} * * *
{¶33} The fact that Mother has made these accusations has also impacted
how she and Father relate to one another. “Increased hostility
between the parents and the frustration of visitation are factors which
can support a finding of a change in circumstances.” In re
Nentwick, 7th Dist. [Columbiana] No. 00 CO 50, 2002-Ohio-1560,
¶39, citing Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 416–417 (1997).
In re R.A.S., supra, at ¶20-26.
{¶34} The court went on to conclude there was an adequate change in
circumstances justifying a modification.
{¶35} Further, in Canada v. Blankenship, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-18-16, 2018-Ohio-
4781, a mother alleged her ex-husband sexually abused her daughter from a prior
10
relationship as well as the parties’ biological two-year-old son. The mother consequently
withheld visitation of the parties’ biological child. Authorities later found the claim
unsubstantiated. The father filed a motion to change custody due to his concern the
parties’ son would suffer mental and emotional damage due to mother’s continued
accusations in the presence of the child. The trial court found a change of circumstances
justifying modification. The Third Appellate District agreed. In addition to the mother’s
“willful interference” with the father’s parenting time, the court emphasized the mother’s
continual allegations of abuse created a change of circumstances. The court pointed out:
“Other courts have held that the making of a false sexual abuse accusation has been
deemed to be ‘“(in and of itself) a ʻfactual circumstance.’ The making of such a false
accusation, subsequent to an initial award of custody, is clearly a ‘change’ in
circumstances irrespective of any detrimental impact on the minor child. Such change
frequently deprives both the child and the noncustodial parent of visitation.”’” In re
Russell, 4th Dist. Washington No. 98CA525, 1999 WL 606781, *5 (Aug. 4, 1999),
quoting Beekman v. Beekman, 96 Ohio App. 3d 783, 788-89 (4th Dist. 1994). “‘Moreover,
we do not believe it requires any great leap in logic to find that a false accusation of sexual
abuse by one parent against another always has a detrimental impact.’” In re Russell,
supra at *5. Canada, supra, at ¶36.
{¶36} Returning to the instant matter, the trial court, in its judgment entry
designating father the sole residential parent and legal custodian, made the following
findings germane to mother’s arguments:
{¶37} Since the prior court order, an allegation arose, in March 2018, that
Father put a pen in the child’s anus. Mother responded by taking the
child to numerous doctor’s specialists, and a rape crisis center.
Mother testified that the child came home from a visit with Father on
11
May 2, 2018 bleeding from the anus. Mother cleaned the child and
then nursed the child to sleep. The next morning at about 10:00 or
11:00 am, Mother responded by taking the child to the Cleveland
Rape Crisis Center. Mother took the child also on May 3, 2018, at
about 6:30 pm, to Hillcrest Hospital for a sexual assault kit
examination. The hospital reported to the police. Mother testified
that “on a whim” she filed a petition for Domestic Violence in the
Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division in Lake County
Ohio. The Petition for Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order was
denied. The police investigated. No charges were filed. Lake
County Human Service investigated. No charges were
substantiated. Mother continued to take the child to doctors,
counselors and therapists.
{¶38} When Mother first went to see Dr. Koricke (the forensic custody
evaluator) in June 2018, her complaints were that Father was
mentally, physically, emotionally and sexually abusing the child.
Mother believed that Father was emotionally abusing the child and
medically abusing the child. Mother’s claim of medical abuse was
because Father was allegedly providing the child foods that the child
was allergic to. During Mother’s testimony, when asked if she
thought Father was physically and sexually abusing the child, Mother
replied “I don’t know.” Further, Mother did not know if Father was a
fit custodia[l] parent. But when she was questioned about the shared
parenting plan that she filed she testified that Father was a fit
custodia[l] parent.
{¶39} In light of the evidence, recommendations of both Dr. Koricke and the GAL,
as well as the analogous case law, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion
in finding a change of circumstance occurred between the entry of the prior order and the
current order.
{¶40} Next, mother asserts the trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its
discretion by failing to consider the best interest factors set forth under R.C.
3109.04(F)(1). We do not agree.
{¶41} The factors found in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) include: (a) the wishes of the child’s
parents regarding the child’s care; (b) the wishes or concerns of the child as expressed
to the court; (c) the child’s interaction and interrelationship with her parents and any other
12
person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to
her home, school, and community; (e) the mental and physical health of all persons
involved; (f) the parent more likely to honor and facilitate visitation and companionship
rights approved by the court; (g) whether either parent has failed to make all child support
payments; (h) whether either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to
any criminal offense; (i) whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a
shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied the other parent his or her
right to visitation in accordance with an order of the court; and (j) whether either parent
has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside this state.
{¶42} In its judgment entry, the trial court listed the best-interest factors and made
the following findings in relation to the same:
{¶43} a) Father would like to become the sole residential parent. Mother would
like to share parenting. Mother testified to this and during closing arguments the Court
questioned her again to ensure that was her desire.
{¶44} b) The Court did not interview [D.L.] in camera. However[,] the child has a
Guardian ad Litem and the Guardian ad Litem has made recommendations to the Court
as and for [sic] the best interest of [D.L.]
{¶45} c) The evidence established that Father and paternal grandfather spend a
lot of time interacting with [D.L.] in their community in Independence[,] Ohio. The child
has no health issues, no allergies and is not currently seeing any mental health
professionals.
13
{¶46} d) The evidence established that [D.L.] has adjusted noicely [sic] to Father’s
home. He is integrated into the community. He has friends, goes to day care/school,
plays tee ball and soccer.
{¶47} e) There was no evidence presented to suggest that Father has any
physical or mental health issue that would prevent him from providing appropriate care
for [D.L.] However, the testimony of Dr. Afsarifard calls Mother’s mental health into
question. Dr. Afsarifard stated that Mother has been traumatized by the events and feels
she is the victim. Therefore, she needs therapy…intensive therapy.
{¶48} f) Mother has been held in contempt for failure to honor or facilitated
parenting time.
{¶49} g) Father was the child support obligor and his child support is current.
Even though the child has been with the Father for over one year there has been no order
for the Mother to pay child support.
{¶50} h) There was no evidence presented to suggest that either parent has ever
been convicted of any crime or engaged in any activity that resulted in harm to a family
member or child.
{¶51} i) See “f” above.
{¶52} j) There was no evidence presented to suggest that either parent is
planning to establish a residence outside the state of Ohio.
{¶53} After taking into consideration the GAL’s recommendation, the trial court
determined a modification of the residential parent was in D.L.’s best interests and the
harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of
14
the change of environment to the child. The trial court’s conclusion is reasonable and
supported by the record. We discern no abuse of discretion.
{¶54} Mother’s first assignment of error lacks merit.
{¶55} Her second assignment of error provides:
{¶56} “The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by
designating father the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child.”
{¶57} As discussed above, the trial court did not err in finding a change of
circumstances since the prior decree; nor did it err in concluding the modification of the
prior order was in the best interest of the child. Mother contends, under this assignment
of error, however, that the trial court’s determination vis-à-vis R.C. 3104.09(E)(1)(a)(iii)
was error. Specifically, she asserts the record does not support the trial court’s conclusion
that “[t]he harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the
advantages of the change of environment to the child.” Id. We do not agree.
{¶58} The trial court found that, since the previous decree, mother had subjected
D.L. to numerous and frequent visits with medical and/or psychological professionals.
She took him to the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, but both medical and psychological
witnesses (Joshua Friedman, M.D.; Dr. Deborah Koricke, Ph.D.; and Farshid Afsarifard,
Ph.D.) stated there was no definitive evidence of sexual abuse. And there was no
evidence presented, other than that offered by mother, that father engaged in any pattern
of abuse, sexual or otherwise, with D.L. From this, the trial court could conclude that the
repeated counseling and medical tests/check-ups would cause him distress, anxiety, and
harm; particularly where, as here, no sexual abuse was confirmed or medically
corroborated.
15
{¶59} With respect to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii), the record reveals that the trial
court addressed and considered the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the minor
child with mother or placing him with father. The record shows D.L. has been developing
well, physically and socially, since being placed with father and there have been no
incidents of excessive medical or psychological intervention. The record indicates that
mother had an ongoing interest in undermining D.L.’s perception of and relationship with
this father. Although father also showed animosity towards mother, his attitude was
ostensibly the result of his frustration with mother’s pattern of abuse allegations and her
arguable attempts to damage, if not sever, his relationship with D.L. We recognize that
the emergency change in custody from mother to father likely distressed and saddened
the child, at least at first. Any radical shift in a young child’s paradigm and routine would
be reasonably expected. Still, in light of the surrounding circumstances, as well as the
child’s young age at the time of the change of custody (three years and approximately
four months), the evidence militates in favor of the trial court’s conclusion. Thus, we
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded the harm likely to
be caused from the change in environment was outweighed by the advantages.
{¶60} Mother’s second assignment of error lacks merit.
{¶61} Mother’s third assignment of error provides:
{¶62} “The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by denying
mother’s motion to disqualify the Guardian ad Litem and allowing the GAL to submit his
report after the commencement of trial.”
16
{¶63} Under her third assignment of error, mother contends the trial court erred
and abused its discretion by denying her motion to disqualify the GAL and allowing him
to submit his report after the commencement of trial. We do not agree.
{¶64} Initially, in support of this argument, mother’s counsel cites to the transcript
of the hearing wherein he objected to the GAL seeking an extension to submit his report.
There is nothing at this point in the proceedings indicating she moved to disqualify the
GAL and mother does not specifically direct this court’s attention to the record where any
motion was filed. Mother’s counsel identifies the point in the proceedings where he
objected to the extension; to wit:
{¶65} [I]t is unfair that the guardian participates, hasn’t done a report, and
then you grant him an extension, I think through September, before
[he] reports. So we are starting trial without any sort of report from
the guardian, which is somewhat unfair, but, nevertheless, he can’t
converse with witnesses once we start trial because that is unfair.
He can’t do it - - he can’t go outside of these court proceedings, do
any sort of further investigation or discuss matters with witnesses of
evidence that had already come before the Court * * *.
{¶66} The court granted the motion for separation of witnesses and asked father’s
attorney for a response regarding the extension and the issue with contacting witnesses.
Father’s attorney responded:
{¶67} Well, Your Honor, this is the first I have heard of this. I would just
say that the guardian should be able to do his duties pursuant to Rule
of Superintendence 48. Certainly anything in his report will be
subject to [mother’s counsel’s] examination, as well as mine. If, for
some reason, in these proceedings [mother’s counsel] believes
something has been included in the report or in his testimony, he
may recall a witness, if he wishes, if that is appropriate, but I think a
blanket type of order would unduly hamper the guardian in this
matter.
{¶68} The court ultimately denied counsel’s request that the GAL have no further
contact with witnesses because such contact would be consistent with his duties. Mother
17
does not specifically take issue with this point. Still, our review of the record reveals
counsel filed a motion to disqualify, which the trial court denied.
{¶69} Mother contends the trial court erred in denying her motion to disqualify the
GAL because he failed to comply with Ohio Sup.R. 48 and he did not submit his report
until after the commencement of trial. We do not agree.
{¶70} Ohio Sup.R. 48.03 sets forth responsibilities for guardians ad litem. It
mandates that the GAL represent the best interest of the child; maintain independence,
objectivity, and fairness with parties; have no ex parte communications with the court;
and make reasonable efforts to provide the court with an informed recommendation as to
the child’s best interest. Mother asserts the GAL improperly “conspired” against her with
the assistance of father, his counsel, and Dr. Koricke. Mother asserts the GAL engaged
in ex parte communications with the trial court that caused her prejudice. Hence, she
concludes the GAL was neither fair nor impartial and the court erred in failing to disqualify
him.
{¶71} Preliminarily, this court has held that the Rules of Superintendence, “‘are
not the equivalent of rules of procedure and have no force equivalent to a statute. They
are purely internal housekeeping rules which are of concern to the judges of the several
courts but create no rights in individual defendants.’” Habo v. Khattab, 11th Dist. Portage
No. 2012-P-0117, 2013-Ohio-5809, ¶84, quoting State v. Gettys, 49 Ohio App.2d 241,
243, (3d Dist.1976). Further, in Miller v. Miller, 4th Dist. Athens No. 14CA6, 2014-Ohio-
5127, the court observed: “we have generally refused to conclude that a guardian ad
litem’s failure to comply with Sup.R. 48(D) constitutes grounds for reversal.” (Emphasis
sic.) Miller, supra, at ¶17.
18
{¶72} With the foregoing in mind, “[t]he role of the guardian ad litem is to
investigate the ward’s situation and then to ask the court to do what the guardian feels is
in the ward's best interest.” In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 232 (1985).
{¶73} In his report, the GAL stated that, at the beginning of December 2018, Dr.
Koricke frantically contacted him. She communicated that she would be recommending
father be granted custody and mother have supervised visitation. She explained she was
extremely concerned that mother may harm or abscond with the child upon learning the
content of her recommendations. Thus, she indicated her report should not be released
until the child was in father’s custody.
{¶74} The GAL stated immediate relief could be obtained via an ex parte motion.
He further asserted he “wanted to verify whether or not the concerns Dr. Koricke was
bringing up (i.e.[,] Mother fleeing and/or hurting the child) were backed up by her report.
This was certainly not an attempt by the GAL to ‘orchestrate,’ ‘manipulate,’ or ‘embellish’
facts. It was simply a way to determine whether or not the doctor’s concerns warranted
the filing of an ex parte motion.” After the GAL confirmed the concerns, Dr. Koricke asked
him if an affidavit would suffice to substantiate the issues for the court because she did
not have her report fully complete. The GAL stated he felt a sworn statement would be
sufficient. Dr. Koricke requested the GAL to draft an affidavit based upon the information
she provided. The GAL stated he did so in the child’s best interest. The GAL further
stated:
{¶75} Dr. Koricke made changes to the affidavit, on her own without input
from the GAL, and she emailed it to him. The GAL then distributed
the affidavit to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, the GAL also sent the
affidavit to Defendant’s counsel the same day. While the GAL had
conversations with Plaintiff’s attorney about Dr. Koricke’s thoughts,
19
the GAL also had conversations with Defendant’s counsel about Dr.
Koricke.
{¶76} While the timing of these communications was slightly staggered as
a result of Dr. Koricke’s concerns, the GAL took extra precautions to
ensure that he was maintaining independence, objectivity, and
fairness.
{¶77} In light of the foregoing, as well as the surrounding circumstances, we
conclude the trial court did not err in denying mother’s motion to disqualify the GAL. The
GAL was acting in D.L.’s best interest and, while mother suffered prejudice by having the
child removed and losing parenting time, we decline to hold that prejudice was unfair in
light of the totality of the evidence.
{¶78} Next, mother takes issue with the GAL’s failure to have a final report
prepared at the commencement of trial. While being cross-examined, the GAL stated he
had sought an extension of filing his report and that deadline had not passed as of that
time. Had counsel for mother believed the late filing was inherently and unfairly
prejudicial, he could have advanced such an argument and sought a continuance of the
hearing. No such argument or motion was proposed. While mother may believe seeking
a continuance was somehow problematic, she failed to advance any such argument in
her brief. And, in her application for reconsideration, she asserts prejudice because she
lost potential parenting time owing to the delay; her assertion, however, is merely
hypothetical, i.e., there is nothing to suggest time would be reinstated, especially in light
of the substantive findings and conclusions of the trial court’s final judgment. We
therefore discern no error in the court’s decision to permit the GAL to file his report after
commencement of the hearing.
{¶79} Mother’s third assignment of error lacks merit.
20
{¶80} Mother’s fourth assignment of error provides:
{¶81} “The trial court erred as a matter of law by violating the appellant’s
fundamental due process rights.”
{¶82} Mother argues her procedural due process rights were violated because the
court required her to proceed before father submitted his evidence and because the court
permitted the GAL to submit his report late.
{¶83} First, there is nothing in the record indicating the trial court compelled
mother to present cross-examination testimony prior to father submitting his evidence. It
would appear that counsel for mother either preferred to proceed in this fashion or was
comfortable acquiescing to this manner of witness presentation. Regardless, mother was
on specific notice of the basis of father’s claims surrounding the issue of re-designating
custody. And, if something occurred during father’s presentation of evidence that mother
deemed new, unique, or improper, there was nothing preventing her from either seeking
re-cross or re-calling a witness, and the timing of the GAL’s report does not affect these
points. Mother was on notice of the issues that were being tried and was given an ample
opportunity to be heard.
{¶84} Mother’s fourth assignment of error lacks merit.
{¶85} Mother’s fifth assignment of error asserts:
{¶86} “The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in denying
mother’s motion for new trial.”
{¶87} Mother asserts the trial court erred in failing to grant her a new trial because
the court required her to proceed before father and because certain ex parte
21
communications between the GAL, father’s counsel, and the trial court created prejudicial
irregularities in the proceeding. We do not agree.
{¶88} As just discussed, we identify nothing prejudicially irregular in the manner
in which evidence was presented. Mother’s counsel did not object and, in light of other
safeguards, e.g., re-crossing or re-calling of witnesses if counsel felt it necessary, we
deem the court’s procedure fair and consistent with due process.
{¶89} With respect to the ex parte communication, we understand that the GAL
and Dr. Koricke arguably should have notified counsel for both parties regarding their
intention to recommend an emergency custody award to father. Still, the matter was tried
to the bench; counsel for mother skillfully cross-examined both the GAL and Dr. Koricke.
In light of both the GAL’s and Dr. Koricke’s roles, the former as the child’s advocate and
the latter a neutral court-appointed expert, the court was able to weigh the facts and
testimony to determine whether anything untoward had occurred in the course of its
receipt of their recommendations. The court assessed the totality of the evidence and
concluded the actions of these individuals, while potentially irregular, was not unfairly
prejudicial to mother’s rights. Mother’s argument therefore lacks merit.
{¶90} Finally, mother contends the trial court should have granted a new trial
because its judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Given our
disposition of mother’s first and second assignments of error, we conclude this argument
is moot and without merit.
{¶91} Mother’s fifth assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶92} Mother’s final assignment of error provides:
22
{¶93} “The trial court erred as a matter of law by denying mother’s motion to
modify visitation.”
{¶94} Mother contends the trial court erred in overruling her motion to modify
visitation. She contends that the trial court disregarded her completion of an intensive
outpatient program as ordered by the court. She claims the court improperly entered
judgment without a hearing and that, in light of her compliance, modification of visitation
was in the child’s best interest.
{¶95} In its judgment, the trial court noted that mother failed to attach anything to
her affidavit (which accompanied her motion) indicating she had completed the intensive
outpatient program; the court further noted that neither party requested a hearing on
mother’s motion. And, because the motion was filed a mere two weeks after the court’s
December 31, 2019 judgment re-designating father as residential and custodial parent, it
concluded that “significant progress could not have been made with these parties in that
period of time.” Under the circumstances, we perceive no abuse of discretion.
{¶96} Mother’s final assignment of error lacks merit.
{¶97} For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the judgments of the Lake County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, are affirmed.
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.,
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.,
concur.
23