Case Title: Rowell v. Smith

Citation: 2012-Ohio-4313

Docket Number: 2011-1053

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Rowell v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4313.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-4313 
ROWELL, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Rowell v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4313.] 
In exercising its jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), a juvenile court may issue 
temporary visitation orders that are in the best interest of the minor child 
during the litigation—Juv.R. 13(B)(1). 
(No. 2011-1053—Submitted May 8, 2012—Decided September 26, 2012.) 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
Nos. 10AP-675 and 10AP-708, 2011-Ohio-2809. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
In exercising its jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), a juvenile court may issue 
temporary visitation orders that are in the best interest of the minor child 
during the litigation.  Juv.R. 13(B)(1). 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} We must determine whether a juvenile court may issue temporary 
visitation orders in a pending case for custody under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) between 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
a parent and nonparent.  For the reasons that follow, we hold that in exercising its 
jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), a juvenile court may issue temporary 
visitation orders that are in the best interest of the minor child during the 
litigation. 
{¶ 2} Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and 
reinstate the trial court’s orders of June 30, 2010, and July 27, 2010. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 3} On September 9, 2003, appellee, Julie Ann Smith, gave birth to a 
daughter as the result of artificial insemination with sperm from an unknown 
donor.  At the time, Smith was involved in a relationship with appellant, Julie 
Rose Rowell.  Several years later, when Smith and Rowell’s relationship ended, 
Rowell filed a petition in juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) seeking 
an order for shared custody of the minor child and simultaneously requesting a 
temporary order granting her companionship time with the child. 
{¶ 4} A magistrate issued a temporary order granting Rowell and Smith 
shared custody of the child.  Smith moved to set aside the order.  On January 15, 
2009, the juvenile court granted Smith’s motion to set aside the magistrate’s 
temporary order, but issued another temporary order that again granted Rowell 
and Smith shared custody.  On January 26, 2009, the court modified its previous 
order per Civ.R. 60(A) and issued another temporary order, this time designating 
Smith as the child’s legal custodian and residential parent and granting Rowell 
visitation rights. 
{¶ 5} Soon thereafter, Rowell filed a motion for contempt for Smith’s 
failure to comply with the court’s orders.  Smith opposed Rowell’s motion, 
arguing that the court had not had jurisdiction to award visitation rights to Rowell, 
so it also did not have the power to enforce the visitation order through contempt.  
On June 23, 2009, the trial court issued a decision and judgment entry finding 
Smith in contempt of its order of January 26, 2009.  The court held that it had 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
authority to issue temporary orders under Juv.R. 13(B)(1) and Loc.R. 5(D) of the 
Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Juvenile Division, allowing 
nonparent visitation and that Smith had violated the January 26, 2009 order and 
was in contempt.  Smith filed a notice of appeal. 
{¶ 6} The court of appeals reversed the finding of contempt, holding that 
the juvenile court had improperly used Civ.R. 60(A) to make a substantive change 
to the January 26, 2009 order on which the contempt finding was based.  186 
Ohio App.3d 717, 2010-Ohio-260, 930 N.E.2d 360. 
{¶ 7} On February 18, 2010, a magistrate again issued an order that 
designated Smith as the child’s temporary custodian and granted Rowell 
temporary visitation.  When Smith failed to comply with the February 18 order, 
Rowell filed another motion for an order finding Smith in contempt.  On March 
22, 2010, a magistrate found Smith guilty of contempt and sentenced her to three 
days in jail, suspending the sentence if within 30 days of the order, Smith purged 
herself of contempt by allowing visitation and paying Rowell $2,500 for attorney 
fees and costs associated with prosecuting the motion for contempt.  Rowell failed 
to comply with the order giving her the terms of the opportunity to purge the 
contempt, and on June 28, 2010, Rowell moved for enforcement of the March 22 
order.  Smith filed objections to the magistrate’s March 22 decision. 
{¶ 8} On June 30, 2010, the trial court overruled Smith’s objections to 
the magistrate’s decision and issued a decision and judgment entry of contempt.  
Smith appealed this decision to the Franklin County Court of Appeals in case No. 
10AP-675. 
{¶ 9} Initially, the court of appeals stayed the trial court’s imposition of 
the three-day jail sentence pending appeal, but in doing so, it stated: “The trial 
court orders in regard to visitation with the minor child are not stayed by virtue of 
this entry.  This court will revisit the matter of this stay in the event [Smith] 
continues to violate orders of court.”  Smith continued to disobey the court’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
order, so the appellate court released its stay and directed Rowell to apply to the 
trial court for enforcement orders. 
{¶ 10} On July 27, 2010, the court granted Rowell’s motion to enforce the 
contempt order.  Smith appealed this decision to the Franklin County Court of 
Appeals in case No. 10AP-708. 
{¶ 11} The court of appeals consolidated the appeals and stayed the trial 
court’s orders pending the outcome of the appeal.  In a split decision, the court of 
appeals held that the juvenile court lacked authority to order visitation in an R.C. 
2151.23(A)(2) custody case; thus, the court held, the underlying temporary order 
of February 18, 2010, was invalid and Smith could not be in contempt of an 
invalid order.  The appellate court reversed the judgments and remanded the cause 
for further proceedings. 
{¶ 12} The cause is before this court upon our acceptance of a 
discretionary appeal.  130 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2011-Ohio-5605, 956 N.E.2d 308. 
Analysis 
{¶ 13} A juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction only if expressly granted 
the authority to do so by statute.  See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(B); 
R.C. 2301.03(A);  In re Gibson, 61 Ohio St.3d 168, 172, 573 N.E.2d 1074 (1991).  
The term “jurisdiction” encompasses both subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., the 
court’s power to adjudicate the merits of a case, and the exercise of that 
jurisdiction.  “ ‘Once a tribunal has jurisdiction over both the subject matter of an 
action and the parties to it, “* * *  the right to hear and determine is perfect; and 
the decision of every question thereafter arising is but the exercise of the 
jurisdiction thus conferred * * *.” ’ ” Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-
Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel. Pizza v. Rayford, 62 Ohio 
St.3d 382, 384, 582 N.E.2d 992 (1992), quoting Sheldon’s Lessee v. Newton, 3 
Ohio St. 494, 499 (1854). 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
{¶ 14} In this case, Rowell filed her petition for shared custody under 
R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), which grants juvenile courts exclusive original jurisdiction 
“to determine the custody of any child not a ward of another court of this state.”  
This includes “custodial claims brought by the persons considered nonparents at 
law.”  In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387, 2002-Ohio-6660, 780 N.E.2d 241, ¶ 43.  
Having acquired subject-matter jurisdiction, the juvenile court then issued 
temporary orders to permit visitation between Rowell and the minor child who is 
the subject of the complaint while the case was pending, citing as authority Juv.R. 
13(B)(1) and Loc.R. 5(D) of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, 
Juvenile Division.1  Under Juv.R. 13(B)(1), a “judge or magistrate may issue 
temporary orders with respect to the relations and conduct of other persons toward 
a child who is the subject of the complaint as the child’s interest and welfare may 
require.” 
{¶ 15} On appeal to the court of appeals, Smith argued that a court must 
have statutory authority to act and that R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) confers jurisdiction to 
determine only custody but does not authorize a court to grant visitation rights.  
Smith cited In re Gibson, 61 Ohio St.3d 168, 573 N.E.2d 1074, in support of this 
argument.  Thus, according to Smith, the juvenile court lacked authority to issue 
the underlying order for visitation.  The court of appeals agreed and reversed the 
order of contempt. 
{¶ 16} In re Gibson involved a grandparent who filed a complaint seeking 
visitation rights with a grandchild who was in the custody of his parents.  The 
grandparent alleged that R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), among other statutes, conferred 
jurisdiction upon the juvenile court to award visitation rights because custody 
                                      
1 Loc.R. 5(D) of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Juvenile Division, provides that 
“[t]he Judge or Magistrate may require motions for temporary orders to be submitted and 
determined without oral hearing upon affidavits in support or opposition.”   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
includes visitation.  But his complaint did not seek an order of custody under R.C. 
2151.23(A)(2). 
{¶ 17} The court in Gibson reasoned that custody and visitation, although 
related, are two distinct legal concepts.  “In asking for visitation only, [the 
grandfather] was not asking the juvenile court to determine or award him 
‘custody.’ ”  Id. at 171.  Thus, we held that a complaint for custody filed under 
R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) does not confer jurisdiction on the juvenile court to determine 
“[t]he complaint of a grandparent seeking only visitation with a grandchild.”  
(Emphasis added.)  Id. at syllabus.  The court expressly reserved its opinion 
regarding a juvenile court’s authority to order visitation when ruling on a 
complaint seeking a determination of custody—exactly the situation here.  Id. at 
172, fn. 3.  Thus, Gibson is inapposite. 
{¶ 18} The dissenting judge in the court of appeals in this case found 
persuasive an opinion by the Eighth District Court of Appeals that affirmed a 
juvenile court’s order granting temporary visitation rights under circumstances 
similar to the facts in this case.  In the Eighth District case, Rita Goodman sought 
custody of and/or companionship rights with two children after her long-time 
relationship with the children’s biological mother ended.  In re LaPiana, 8th Dist. 
Nos. 93691 and 93692, 2010-Ohio-3606.  The court reasoned that per In re 
Bonfield, Goodman had a legal right to seek shared custody under R.C. 2151.23 
and that in such cases, it is the responsibility of the court to act in the best interest 
of the child.  Id., ¶ 20-21.  Thus, the court concluded, the juvenile court had 
jurisdiction to determine not only the issue of custody of the children but also 
whether it was in the children’s best interest to have companionship with the 
nonparent.  Id., ¶ 27.2   
                                      
2 The LaPiana court also relied, in part, on our dismissal of a petition for a writ of prohibition in 
State ex rel. Smith v. Gill, 125 Ohio St.3d 1459, 2010-Ohio-2753, 928 N.E.2d 735.  In that case, 
Smith alleged that the juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to issue the 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
{¶ 19} Here, the juvenile court relied on Juv.R. 13(B)(1) in granting 
Rowell visitation rights with the minor who was the subject of the pending R.C. 
2151.23 custody case.  Construing the juvenile rules liberally, as we must, see 
Juv.R. 1(B), we hold that a juvenile court may issue temporary visitation orders in 
cases within its jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23 if it is in the child’s best interest. 
{¶ 20} Smith contends that this interpretation of the Rules of Juvenile 
Procedure violates her fundamental rights as a parent, which are protected by the 
United States Constitution.  In support of this argument, Smith cites Troxel v. 
Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66-67, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (plurality 
opinion) (parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, 
custody, and control of their children that is protected from government 
interference by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution).  According to Smith, a court may not grant visitation 
rights to a nonparent under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), even temporarily, until the issue 
of custody is determined; otherwise, the order is an infringement on the parent’s 
fundamental rights. 
{¶ 21} We discussed Troxel within the realm of Ohio’s nonparental-
visitation statutes in Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 
N.E.2d 1165.  We acknowledged that Troxel states that there is “a presumption 
that fit parents act in the best interest of their children.”  Id. at ¶ 44.  But that 
presumption is not irrebuttable.  “Moreover, nothing in Troxel suggests that a 
parent’s wishes should be placed before a child’s best interest.”  Id. 
{¶ 22} Here, the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the 
case under R.C. 2151.23, it afforded Smith the opportunity to be heard on the 
issue of visitation, and it had discretion under Juv.R. 13(B) to issue a temporary 
                                                                                                     
orders of visitation between Rowell and the minor child.  The Eighth District reasoned that our 
dismissal indicated that the Franklin County Juvenile court had jurisdiction; otherwise we would 
have granted the writ.  LaPiana, ¶ 26.  
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
visitation order, so long as it was in the child’s best interest.  Within these 
parameters, we find that the court had authority to grant the temporary order and 
that the temporary order did not violate Smith’s fundamental rights. 
{¶ 23} Smith argues that if we reverse the appellate court, we are 
interpreting the law as giving juvenile courts summary power and unfettered 
discretion to grant visitation to a nonrelative.  We disagree.  The court’s actions 
must be in the child’s best interest.  Moreover, Smith’s interpretation of the law is 
illogical.  Under her interpretation, the General Assembly granted authority for 
juvenile courts to determine the custody of a child but cannot determine whether a 
party to the custody action can visit with the child while the action is pending. 
{¶ 24} Smith also emphasizes that she never intended to share custody 
with Rowell, but that is a question at issue in the custody case that does not need 
to be answered for purposes of our opinion today. 
{¶ 25} In addition, Smith contends that Juv.R. 13(B) did not authorize the 
visitation order, because Juv.R. 1(C)(4) states that the Rules of Juvenile Procedure 
do not apply to “proceedings to determine parent-child relationship.”  But the 
underlying claim involves a matter of shared custody, not a matter of parentage.  
Thus, the exception in Juv.R. 1(C) for proceedings to determine parent-child 
relationships, does not apply here. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 26} Consequently, we hold that in exercising its jurisdiction under R.C. 
2151.23(A)(2), a juvenile court may issue temporary visitation orders that are in 
the best interest of the minor child during the litigation. 
{¶ 27} Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and 
reinstate the trial court’s orders of June 30, 2010, and July 27, 2010. 
Judgment reversed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., 
concur. 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
O’DONNELL and CUPP, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
MCGEE BROWN, J., concurring. 
{¶ 28} I concur in the majority’s reversal of the court of appeals’ 
judgment and its reinstatement of the trial court’s June 30, 2010 contempt order 
and July 27, 2010 order enforcing contempt.  However, I write separately because 
I would order appellee, Julie Ann Smith, to appear and show cause why she 
should not be held in contempt for her blatant refusal to comply with this court’s 
July 7, 2011 order. 
{¶ 29} Smith has effectively denied Rowell contact with the minor child 
for three years.  She has not followed any of the visitation orders that have been 
issued and has appealed every contempt sanction, resulting in delay and continued 
denial of visitation.  Even this court’s July 7, 2011 order reinstating temporary 
visitation orders pending the resolution of Rowell’s appeal before this court was 
ignored. 
{¶ 30} Punishment for contempt may be appropriate when a party is found 
guilty of “[d]isobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order, rule, 
judgment, or command of a court or officer.”  R.C. 2705.02(A).  A contemptuous 
act “brings the administration of justice into disrespect” and “obstruct[s] a court in 
the performance of its functions.”  Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 
55, 271 N.E.2d 815 (1971), at paragraph one of the syllabus.  “Fundamentally, the 
law of contempt is intended to uphold and ensure the effective administration of 
justice.  Of equal importance is the need to secure the dignity of the court and to 
affirm the supremacy of law.  For these reasons, a court’s order must be obeyed.” 
Cramer v. Petrie, 70 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 637 N.E.2d 882 (1994).  It is our duty 
to ensure that the whims of the individual ultimately bend to the law, rather than 
allowing the law to bend to the whims of the individual.  Id. at fn. 1.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Accordingly, a party must not be permitted to ignore a court’s order, even when 
she disagrees with it. 
{¶ 31} Smith was instructed to allow Rowell to exercise visitation with 
the child in orders that came from the trial court, the court of appeals, and this 
court.  Because she believes herself to be the best authority on the legal validity of 
temporary visitation orders, Smith has thumbed her nose at every level of court in 
this state, for more than three years. 
{¶ 32} Smith first began to flout court-ordered visitation in January 2009 
by reducing Rowell’s visitation with the child.  The trial court found Smith in 
contempt in June 2009 and ordered Smith to serve three days in jail, but 
suspended the sentence on the condition that Smith purge the contempt by 
obeying the visitation order.  Soon after the trial court’s June 2009 judgment, 
Smith refused to allow Rowell to have any visitation with the child.  After a 
subsequent temporary visitation order was issued in February 2010, Smith 
continued to refuse to allow any contact between Rowell and the child.  During a 
March 2010 contempt hearing, Smith admitted under oath that she had not 
complied with the terms of the visitation order in any respect, that she had no 
intention of following the order, and that she was fully aware of the possible 
sanctions for contempt.  The trial court found Smith in contempt in June 2010, 
and ordered Smith to serve three days in jail, but again suspended the sentence on 
the condition that Smith purge the contempt by paying Rowell’s attorney fees and 
allowing visitation.  Smith continued to deny visitation, and in July 2010, the trial 
court granted Rowell’s motion to enforce the court’s contempt order. 
{¶ 33} Although the Tenth District Court of Appeals stayed the contempt 
order while Smith’s appeal was pending, it ordered Smith to comply with the 
February 2010 temporary visitation order.  Once again, Smith refused to comply.  
In light of Smith’s contumacious behavior, the appellate court vacated its partial 
January Term, 2012 
11 
 
stay in September 2010 and instructed Rowell to apply to the trial court for 
enforcement orders. 
{¶ 34} When the matter came before this court on appeal, we granted 
Rowell’s motion to stay the decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals and 
reinstated the trial court’s temporary visitation orders.  Notwithstanding the order 
from this court, Smith refused to comply. 
{¶ 35} Smith has blatantly disregarded the trial court’s authority, the 
appellate court’s authority, and this court’s authority, and has shown immense 
disrespect toward the judicial proceedings.  Her disdain for the authority of 
Ohio’s courts is particularly egregious since Smith herself is an attorney.  Smith’s 
actions could even be cause for disciplinary action.  See, e.g., Stark Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Ake, 111 Ohio St.3d 266, 2006-Ohio-5704, 855 N.E.2d 1206 (attorney was 
found to have committed professional misconduct by repeatedly and deliberately 
ignoring a domestic court’s orders in divorce proceedings in which the attorney 
was a party); Disciplinary Counsel v. Hiltbrand, 110 Ohio St.3d 214, 2006-Ohio-
4250, 852 N.E.2d 733, ¶ 10 and 11 (attorney was found to have committed 
professional misconduct by violating a court order in a civil lawsuit in which she 
was a party). 
{¶ 36} The fact that Smith has so far been able to brazenly and 
continuously defy court orders with impunity sends a dangerous message to 
Ohio’s domestic-relations litigants.  Beyond harming the integrity of the courts, 
Smith’s actions have also harmed her child.  From her birth in 2003 until 2009, 
the child had a relationship with Rowell.  For three years, Smith has denied 
Rowell and the child visitation with each other.  Although Smith has her reasons 
for not wanting to be involved with Rowell, the juvenile court found that it was in 
the child’s best interest to have a relationship with Rowell.  Smith’s disregard of 
lawful court orders has done harm to this relationship. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
{¶ 37} The integrity of the courts and the enforcement of court orders are 
critical to our system of justice.  For these reasons, I would issue a show-cause 
order compelling Smith to explain why she should not be held in contempt of this 
court’s order. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
CUPP, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 38} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 39} This litigation arises from two trial court orders.  In the first, the 
trial court found appellee, Julie Smith, to be in contempt of its temporary 
visitation order and sentenced her to three days in jail, suspending the sentence to 
allow Smith to purge herself of contempt.  In the second order, the trial court 
found that Smith had failed to purge the contempt and ordered her to serve the 
three-day jail sentence.  However, the behavior underlying the contempt finding 
and enforcement action has ceased.  In February 2012, the trial court issued a 
judgment entry in which it awarded shared custody of the child to appellant, Julie 
Rowell, and Smith, along with a specific companionship schedule and other 
related terms.  As of the time of oral argument, no appeal had been taken from 
this order and there are no allegations that Smith is presently violating the terms 
of the custody order.  From all appearances, the custody arrangements for this 
child have stabilized.  Consequently, this case is moot and there is no actual 
controversy pertaining to the contempt proceedings presented to this court in this 
appeal.  I would dismiss this appeal as moot. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Massucci & Kline, L.L.C., and LeeAnn Massucci; and Carol Ann Fey, for 
appellant. 
January Term, 2012 
13 
 
 
Gary J. Gottfried Co., L.P.A., Gary J. Gottfried, and Eric M. Brown, for 
appellee. 
 
Einstein & Poling, L.L.C., and Dianne Einstein, urging affirmance for 
amici curiae, Marlin and Jennifer Herrick. 
______________________