[Cite as Brennan v. Brennan, 2021-Ohio-1865.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

RHIANNON BRENNAN 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

-vsTODD BRENNAN 

 Defendant-Appellee 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. CT2020-0047 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court

of Common Pleas Court, Domestic 

Relations Division, Case No. DA2017-1006 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 1, 2021 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

ROSE M. FOX 

Fox Law Office TODD BRENNEN PRO SE 

233 Main Street 2875 Jenkins Drive 

Zanesville, OH 43701 Zanesville, OH 43701 
[Cite as Brennan v. Brennan, 2021-Ohio-1865.]

Gwin, J., 

{¶1} Appellant appeals the August 31, 2020 judgment entry of the Muskingum 

County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, finding her in contempt of 

court. 

Facts & Procedural History

{¶2} On December 12, 2017, appellant Rhiannon Brennan (“Mother”) filed a 

complaint for divorce against appellee Todd Brennan (“Father”). The parties have one 

child, M.B., who was born on September 15, 2010. 

{¶3} The parties reached an agreement on all issues except for the allocation of 

parental rights. While Father wanted specific parenting time, Mother wanted Father to 

have parenting time in accordance with a counselor’s recommendation. In a judgment 

entry on October 17, 2018, the trial court noted that it was not provided evidence as to 

the nature of the child’s counseling and was not provided any guidance as to what the 

counselor would recommend, nor the timeframes involved. The trial court additionally 

noted in its entry that “it was obvious that [M.B.] had far more knowledge of this 

proceeding than is appropriate” and “many of her observations and phrases the Court 

has heard previously from the testimony in the court room.” The trial court determined the 

parties could not operate under a cooperative parenting agreement, and it was in the best 

interest of the child for Father to have a limited parenting schedule. 

{¶4} In early November of 2018, prior to the final divorce decree being entered, 

Father filed a motion for contempt and Mother filed a motion for emergency suspension 

of Father’s parenting time. The trial court denied both motions. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 3 

{¶5} The trial court issued a judgment entry and decree of divorce on November 

19, 2018. The trial court designated Mother as the residential parent, and ordered Father 

to have parenting time from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. the first, second, and third Sundays of 

each month, and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Father’s holidays. 

{¶6} Mother filed a motion for emergency temporary suspension of Father’s 

parenting time on November 21, 2018, arguing a counselor recommended suspension of 

Father’s parenting time. Mother withdrew her motion on December 3, 2018, stating M.B. 

“elected go to with [Father] for his parenting time and reported no concerning issues to 

[Mother].” 

{¶7} Father filed a motion for contempt on August 28, 2019, stating Mother 

refused him parenting time for several months. The trial court appointed Mother counsel 

on the contempt portion of the proceeding. 

{¶8} The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on February 14, 2020. 

{¶9} Abigail Souzis (“Souzis”) was previously the therapist for M.B. from June of 

2018 to August of 2019. M.B. told Souzis she witnessed violence by Father towards 

Mother and that Father made verbal threats towards M.B. when she, Mother, and Father 

lived together. Thus, M.B. felt anxious when she visited Father. Souzis does not recall 

what M.B. said was going on during the visits that made M.B. anxious. M.B. and Souzis 

created a safety plan for visits with Father in order to help M.B. feel safe. Souzis was 

unable to complete the trauma processing portion of therapy, because M.B. was being 

exposed to her trauma trigger, which was seeing Father. Souzis could not testify as to 

how long M.B. would have to be away from Father to complete therapy, as there is no 

specific time frame for how long it takes. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 4 

{¶10} On cross-examination, Souzis could not recall the specifics of when M.B. 

reported Father threatened her, but confirmed M.B. would have been approximately 

three-and-a-half years old when it happened. Souzis did not get the sense M.B. was 

repeating what Mother said. Souzis recalled M.B. told her she would have a lot of stress 

when going to the exchange location, but Souzis could not remember what M.B. said 

would happen when she was at Father’s home. 

{¶11} A.B. is one of Father’s older children. She frequently went with Father to 

pick up M.B. While M.B. was initially reluctant to attend visits, once she came, she had 

a good time and was excited to come. However, after Mother’s Day, M.B. refused to visit. 

A.B. would get out of the car asking how M.B. was and if she wanted to come. The 

windows of M.B.’s car were rolled up and the doors were locked. M.B. and Mother would 

not speak to A.B. or Father, and M.B. would refuse to get out of the car. 

{¶12} A.B. testified that, during a Christmas visit, M.B. had a great time. On 

summer visits, M.B. would swim in the pool and ride bikes. However, A.B. stated it 

seemed like when M.B. started having a good time, she suddenly would go inside by 

herself. A.B. believed M.B. would get in trouble with Mother if she had too much fun. It 

appeared to A.B. that M.B. felt she was not allowed to have a good time with Father. M.B. 

got along well with Father’s other siblings. 

{¶13} Ashley Brooks is Father’s fiancée. She has been present at almost all of 

M.B.’s visits. Usually during the visits, M.B. plays and dances around. Several times, 

Brooks or Father texted or called Mother to ask if M.B. could visit early to go to COSI or 

on other trips, but Brooks never received a call or text back from Mother. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 5 

{¶14} During one visit when they were having a pool party, M.B. disappeared into 

the restroom, but told Father she was fine. M.B. called the police and told the police when 

they arrived that she was ready to go home. M.B. asked Brooks to bag up the pizza 

Brooks ordered for her to take home. M.B. went to a birthday party later that day. Brooks 

stated Father is playful, funny, attentive, and a supportive Father. 

{¶15} Brooks called the police in 2016 during an argument with Father. She 

stated there was no violence and had nothing to do with any of the children. 

{¶16} Father testified that visits with M.B. initially went very well. If Mother told 

him M.B. was sick, he was willing to make up the visit another day. However, since 

Mother’s Day, Father has not visited with M.B., except when he met to give her Christmas 

gifts in a parking lot. Father invited Mother to his house for Christmas since M.B. stated 

she was scared. However, Mother would not come to his home, and instead they met in 

a parking lot so he could give M.B. her presents. 

{¶17} Since Mother’s Day, Father would show up to pick up M.B., and M.B. would 

not roll down the window or come out of the car. Father asked Mother to assist him, but 

Mother would not speak to Father. Father heard M.B. ask Mother, “what do you think?” 

when Father asked if she wanted to go get ice cream, or go to his house, but Mother did 

not respond. Some days, Mother just never showed up at the meeting place. Father has 

not had parenting time with M.B. since the week-end before Mother’s Day of 2019. The 

last time he went to meet M.B., she refused to come with him, but rolled down the window 

to tell him she was changing her last name. Father testified that while he is not a perfect 

person, but he has never harmed M.B. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 6 

{¶18} Father testified that, in 2014, he pled no contest to a fourth-degree 

misdemeanor charge of domestic violence by threat when M.B. was three-and-a-half 

years old. Father admitted he did not show up at the meeting place in February of 2020 

because he was out of town. Father has asked Mother for the information so he could 

talk to M.B.’s counselor or doctor, but Mother acted “like it’s a big secret.” Mother told 

him the counselor was at Ohio State, but he learned during the hearing that she was from 

Nationwide Children’s. 

{¶19} Debra Moore is Mother’s aunt. She has been present at two parenting 

exchanges. M.B. did not want to go and was crying because she did not feel safe. The 

day would end with Mother going home with M.B. because M.B. stated she was not going 

with Father. Moore testified that Mother attempted to get M.B. to go with Father. 

{¶20} The hearing was continued until August 18, 2020. Mother testified. When 

the visits first started in 2018, they mostly occurred, although Mother stated Father noshowed a few times. Mother stated that M.B. started playing football, and the games 

were at 1:00 on Sundays, during Father’s parenting time. Mother testified that Father told 

her he still wanted parenting time, and if she didn’t show up, he was filing a contempt 

motion. Mother stated, “instead, I took her to her football games.” M.B. called the police 

twice during Father’s parenting time, and then did not want to go at all. 

{¶21} In 2019, Mother took M.B. to the emergency room because she had a 

severe panic attack after trying to do the parenting exchange. M.B. was not admitted to 

the hospital. Currently, M.B. does therapy weekly, and a psychiatrist sees her to prescribe 

medication. M.B. and Mother have tried to talk with Father about her issues, but Father 

tells M.B. that Mother is putting ideas in M.B.’s head. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 7 

{¶22} Mother testified that M.B. refuses to get out of the car, screams, and hovers 

down in the back seat when she attempts to take her to visits. Mother’s position is that 

she cannot get M.B. to get out of the car to go with Father. Mother wants the visits to 

stop so M.B. can finish her therapy. However, Mother does not know how long that will 

take. Mother stated that M.B. remembers the violence against Mother by Father in 2014, 

when Father threatened to kill them and when Father’s older child jumped on Mother’s 

back. Mother testified M.B. has flashbacks of Father standing over M.B. with a knife, 

even though Mother acknowledged this never happened. 

{¶23} Father asked Mother on cross-examination why Mother didn’t have M.B. 

finish therapy since she has not gone on a visit with Father since July of 2019. Mother 

stated that seeing Father from the car on Sundays, even for two minutes, was a trigger 

for M.B. Mother has told M.B. to call the police if she does not feel safe with Father. 

{¶24} The trial court issued a judgment entry on August 31, 2020, finding that 

Mother did not dispute that parenting time had been missed. The question was whether 

Mother had a legal defense to her failure to provide the minor child for Father’s parenting 

time. The trial court noted the testimony by Souzis about M.B.’s post-traumatic stress 

disorder, but stated the counselor has received information only from Mother and M.B. 

The trial court noted that while the counselor stated she could not treat M.B. if parenting 

time was still taking place because M.B. identified Father as her trauma trigger, “no 

parenting time had been taking place in about a year, and [Mother] did not return to this 

counselor until only shortly before the last hearing.” 

{¶25} The trial court reviewed Father’s evidence, including the testimony from 

him, his daughter, and his fiancée, that M.B. interacted well during the visits. The trial 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 8 

court referenced a recording Mother presented of M.B. to demonstrate the child’s reaction 

when she was asked to go with Father, and stated, “within a brief period of time listening 

to this recording it was obvious to the Court that this child was not evidencing trauma but 

was throwing a tantrum because she was not getting her way.” 

{¶26} The trial court found that, “either knowingly or unknowingly, [Mother] has 

played a significant role in the deteriorated relationship between M.B. and her father.” 

While the trial court noted that a child exposed to domestic violence may have some ill 

effects, Mother presented “no evidence that [Father] presents such a serious risk of 

physical harm to M.B. that she should call for law enforcement assistance,” particularly 

when one of the times she called law enforcement was when she was playing and having 

a great time before calmly going in to the house to call the police. The court found it 

“unsettling” that Mother has no ability to control M.B., a ten-year old child, and determined 

the child was given too much information, power, and control over the parenting time 

issue. 

{¶27} The trial court also found that Father’s demeanor and approach may be 

unsettling to a sensitive child, and encouraged him to consider this in his interactions with 

M.B. 

{¶28} The trial court found Mother in contempt for her failure to comply with the 

previous parenting order of the court and found that she did not provide a legally sufficient 

defense for that failure. The court sentenced Mother to ten days in jail for the contempt, 

but issued the following purge conditions: parenting time to re-commence on October 4, 

2020, and additional parenting time to be provided to Father by extending parenting time 

from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. the first, second, third Sundays of each month; and seek and 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 9 

retain an appropriate counselor to assist in the reunification between M.B. and Father. 

The trial court ordered this parenting time be exercised in the presence of other family 

members with whom M.B. has previously interacted and had a good relationship. The 

trial court also referred the case to the court’s custody investigator to monitor the progress 

of the case. 

{¶29} Mother appeals the judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of 

Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and assigns the following as error: 

{¶30} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING 

THAT APPELLANT WAS IN CONTEMPT FOR DENYING PARENTING TIME TO THE 

APPELLEE.” 

I. 

{¶31} Mother argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding her in contempt 

for denying Father parenting time with M.B. 

{¶32} In this case, the trial court found Mother in contempt for violating its 

parenting time order by preventing Father from exercising parenting time with M.B. It is 

well-established that the failure to comply with a visitation order is proper grounds for a 

finding of contempt. Sloat v. James, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008 CA 00048, 2009-Ohio-2849. 

{¶33} “A court has authority both under R.C. 2705.02(A) and on the basis of its 

inherent powers to punish the disobedience of its orders with contempt proceedings.” 

Zakany v. Zakany, 9 Ohio St.3d 192, 459 N.E.2d 870 (1984). “The purpose of sanctions 

in a case of civil contempt is to compel the contemnor to comply with lawful orders of a 

court, and the fact that the contemnor acted innocently and not in intentional disregard of 

a court order is not a defense to a charge of civil contempt.” Windham Bank v. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 10 

Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 271 N.E.2d 815 (1971). “It is irrelevant that the 

transgressing party does not intend to violate the court order. If the dictates of the judicial 

decree are not followed, a contempt citation will result.” Pedone v. Pedone, 11 Ohio 

App.3d 164, 463 N.E.2d 656 (8th Dist. 1983). 

{¶34} We review a contempt finding under an abuse of discretion standard. 

Wadian v. Wadian, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2007CA00125, 2008-Ohio-5009. In order to find 

an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable, and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. 

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 

{¶35} In a civil contempt proceeding, the movant bears the initial burden of 

demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the other party violated an order of 

the court. Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250, 416 N.E.2d 610 (1980). 

“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that will form a firm belief in the mind of the 

trier of fact as to the facts sought to be established. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Massengale, 

58 Ohio St.3d 121, 568 N.E.2d 1222 (1991). Determination of clear and convincing 

evidence is within the discretion of the trier of fact. The trial court’s decision should not 

be disturbed as against the manifest weight of the evidence if the decision is supported 

by some competent and credible evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. 54 Ohio 

St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). A reviewing court should not reverse a decision simply 

because it holds a different opinion concerning the credibility of the witnesses and 

evidence submitted before the trial court. Geary v. Geary, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 

14CAF050033, 2015-Ohio-259. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 11 

{¶36} Mother contends the record does not show Father met his burden of 

demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother violated the order of the 

court. We disagree. A.B. testified that she attended several attempted exchanges, and 

M.B. refused to get out of the car to go to Father’s house for visitation. Father testified 

he has not had parenting time with M.B. since the week-end before Mother’s Day of 2019. 

Mother admitted Father has not had parenting time since the week-end before Mother’s 

Day. Accordingly, we find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial 

court’s determination that Father met his initial burden of proof that Mother violated the 

order of the trial court. 

{¶37} Mother also argues the trial court abused its discretion in not finding that 

she had a defense to the denial of parenting time. A residential parent may have a 

defense in a contempt proceeding for interference with parenting time if he or she has a 

reasonable, good faith belief that he or she must deny visitation to protect the safety of 

the child. Steele v. Steele, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 25713, 2013-Ohio-3655. 

{¶38} Mother specifically contends the trial court committed error in not properly 

considering the child’s trauma, as testified to by the counselor. We disagree. The trial 

court did consider the counselor’s testimony, but specifically noted that the counselor only 

received information from M.B. and Mother. Additionally, the trial court, as the trier of fact 

“is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. It may 

believe or disbelieve any witness or accept part of what a witness says and reject the 

rest.” McKay Machine Co. v. Rodman, 11 Ohio St.2d 77, 228 N.E.2d 304 (1967). 

{¶39} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s 

determination that Mother failed to meet her burden to prove she was justified in denying 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 12 

visitation as provided for by the trial court. The testimony from the counselor focused on 

past trauma, occurring in 2014. In 2018, subsequent to the 2014 trauma, M.B. had good 

visits with Father, elected to go with him, and reported no issues to Mother. Additionally, 

despite the fact that M.B. did not see Father other than through a car window for over a 

year, Mother did not return her to counseling to conclude the process. Neither Mother, 

nor the counselor, could give the trial court a time-frame for the conclusion of M.B.’s 

therapy, or when they felt visitation could resume. 

{¶40} There were no allegations or evidence in the record that M.B. has been 

abused or mistreated while in Father’s care during his parenting time. While M.B. 

reported being anxious or stressed when going to visit Father to Souzis, Souzis could not 

recall what M.B. said was going on during the visits that caused anxiety or stress. 

{¶41} A.B. testified that when she came for visits, M.B. had a good time, swimming 

in the pool, riding bikes, and playing with Father’s other children. Brooks, who was 

present at almost all of M.B.’s visits, testified M.B. had a good time when she visited. 

Brooks stated that during one visit when M.B. called the police, they were having a pool 

party and M.B. asked Brooks to order her a pizza, but then M.B. calmly went into the 

house, called 911, and told them she wanted to go home. Father testified that the visits 

with M.B. initially went well; she had fun at his house and with his other children. He 

stated that M.B. would then not get out of the car, and Mother refused to speak to him or 

assist him in getting M.B. out of the car. 

{¶42} Mother’s testimony and argument was that she could not get M.B. to get out 

of the car and go with Father. The trial court found this was not sufficient to meet her 

burden to prove she was justified in denying visitation. Based on the standards of review 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 13 

as cited above and the evidence presented, we cannot say the trial court abused its 

discretion in this determination. The weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility 

of the witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 552 

N.E.2d 180 (1990). The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, 

attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the 

written page.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). 

{¶43} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother in 

contempt. After considering the testimony presented, the trial court did not find Mother’s 

explanation for her non-compliance with the court’s visitation sufficient to establish 

extraordinary circumstances. Based on our standard of review and the evidence 

presented, we do not find the trial court’s decision to be arbitrary, unconscionable, or 

unreasonable. 

{¶44} Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0047 14 

{¶45} The August 31, 2020 judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of 

Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed. 

By Gwin, J., 

Baldwin, P. J., and 

Wise, John, J., concur