[Cite as Dickenson v. Jackson, 2024-Ohio-1236.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

CHRISTOPHER DICKENSON,

Appellee,

 - vs -

MELISSA JACKSON,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2023-09-073

O P I N I O N

4/1/2024

CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

Case No. 08DR032193

Melanie Walls Law, and Melanie B. Walls, for appellee.

Caparella-Kraemer & Associates, LLC, and Courtney N. Caparella-Kraemer, for 

appellant.

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Melissa Jackson ("Mother"), appeals the decision of the Warren 

County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting the motion for 

contempt filed by her ex-husband, appellee, Christopher Dickenson ("Father"). Mother 

also appeals the domestic relations court's decision ordering her to pay attorney fees and 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 2 -

litigation expenses to Father. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the domestic 

relations court's decision in both respects.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Mother and Father were married in Litchfield, Illinois on June 9, 2001. There 

was one child born issue of the marriage, a girl, Anna, born on March 28, 2008.1 Father 

filed a complaint for divorce from Mother on August 1, 2008. After entering a shared 

parenting plan, Mother and Father were subsequently divorced on April 10, 2009. The 

parties' shared parenting plan provided Father, as the resident parent, parenting time with 

Anna in accordance with the domestic relation court's "Basic I" parenting time schedule. 

That schedule provided Father parenting time with Anna while she was between the ages 

of two through 12 years old as follows:

1. Weekends: Alternate weekends beginning Friday at 6:00 

p.m. and ending Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

2. Weekdays: Every Wednesday (or other day by agreement) 

from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

{¶ 3} Father was then to have the following parenting time with Anna when she

was between the ages of 13 years old through 15 years old:

Weekends and Weekdays: It is recommended that the 

above schedule for children age two through twelve be 

continued through age fifteen if possible. However, parents 

should respect a teenager's need to spend time with peers 

and in organized activities, and less time with each parent, 

especially during weekends and summer holidays. Quality of 

time is more important than a rigid schedule. Flexibility in 

scheduling is necessary. When possible, it is preferable to 

consider the teenager's wishes as long as the parents agree. 

At a minimum, the non-residential parent may spend time with 

children in this age bracket every Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. 

to 8:30 p.m. and at least one overnight and day on alternating 

weekends.

1. To protect the child's privacy, this court has changed the child's name to "Anna" for purposes of issuing 

this opinion. Anna was always either 13 or 14 years old relevant to this appeal.
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 3 -

{¶ 4} The shared parenting plan further provided Father with parenting time with 

Anna from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on the July 4th holiday during even years. This would 

include, for instance, the July 4, 2022 holiday. This was in addition to the shared 

parenting plan stating the following with respect to Anna's activities:

Although it is in the best interests of the Child to take part in 

activities which provide enrichment for the Child, the parties 

acknowledge that they shall not, without the other's consent, 

schedule activities for the Child which interfere with the time 

that the other has possession of the Child. The parties will 

discuss the enrollment of the Child in extra-curricular activities 

prior to said enrollment and the other parent shall be provided 

with a schedule of these events.

{¶ 5} On April 12, 2022, Father filed a motion for contempt against Mother. Within 

that motion, Father alleged that Mother should be found in contempt for denying him his 

parenting time with Anna on Friday, January 21, 2022. Father also alleged that Mother 

should be found in contempt for having "clearly and unambiguously" notified him that she 

would be denying him extended parenting time with Anna during the upcoming summer 

of 2022. This included, but was not limited to, Father's parenting time with Anna on the 

upcoming July 4, 2022 holiday. 

{¶ 6} The matter ultimately came on for a two-day hearing before a domestic 

relations court magistrate on January 19 and March 6, 2023.2 During this hearing, the 

magistrate heard testimony from both Mother and Father. This included Father testifying 

that, in addition to Mother being in contempt for denying him his parenting time with Anna 

on Friday, January 21, 2022, Mother should also be found in contempt for denying him 

his parenting time with Anna on the July 4, 2022 holiday. Father further testified that, 

although it was not included within his contempt motion, Mother should be found in 

2. Mother did not appear at the second hearing date, March 6, 2023, claiming she did not receive notice 

of the hearing. Mother's attorney, however, was present at the March 6, 2023 hearing date, during which 

he dismissed all of Mother's then pending motions that were to be addressed at that hearing.
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 4 -

contempt for scheduling activities for Anna during Father's parenting time without first 

discussing the matter with Father. 

{¶ 7} On April 6, 2023, the magistrate issued a decision finding Mother in 

contempt for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on Friday, January 21, 2022. 

In so holding, the magistrate stated:

First, on Friday, January 21, 2022, Mother allowed [Anna] to 

choose which basketball game she wanted to attend [Milford 

or Lakota East/West]. This was during Father's parenting 

time. Mother admitted this. This caused Father to lose his 

Friday overnight parenting time. Mother's defense that her 

interpretation of the Warren County Basic Parenting 

Scheduled allowed Mother to do this is incorrect. Mother 

interpreted the rule for twelve (12) year olds as one weekend 

night and one weekend day, and that is what [Anna] chose. 

Mother failed to consider the fact that the Warren County 

Basic Parenting Schedule also states, in this same paragraph 

on page two (2), letter D., "When possible, it is preferable to 

consider the teenager's wishes as long as the parents agree." 

Father disagreed with the evening of January 21, 2022. There 

was testimony about whether this was the correct basketball 

game but that is irrelevant to the fact that Father was denied 

his overnight parenting time on January 21, 2022. Mother is 

in contempt of the [parties' shared parenting plan].

{¶ 8} The magistrate also found Mother in contempt for denying Father his 

parenting time with Anna on the July 4, 2022 holiday. This was in addition to the 

magistrate finding Mother in contempt for scheduling activities for Anna during Father's 

parenting time without first discussing the matter with Father. This included Mother 

signing Anna up for cross-country, track, and basketball. 

{¶ 9} Upon finding Mother in contempt, the magistrate then ordered Mother to 

pay a total of $2,250 in attorney fees to Father; $750 in attorney fees "for being found in 

contempt," plus an additional $1,500 in attorney fees and litigation expenses for having 

filed "numerous motions" that "were voluntarily withdrawn on the second day of hearings," 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 5 -

March 6, 2023, for which Father was billed a total of $3,374.10.3 The magistrate 

determined that this additional award of attorney fees and litigation expenses was 

"equitable" given "Mother's conduct, and the withdrawal of all of her motions the second 

day of the hearings," when also taking into consideration Father had also "switched 

attorneys" while these proceedings were ongoing, thereby requiring Father's newly 

retained counsel "to do some repetitive work."

{¶ 10} On April 18, 2023, Mother filed an objection to the magistrate's decision. To 

support her objection, Mother provided a general, boilerplate objection to the magistrate's 

decision finding her in contempt. Specifically, Mother stated within her objection the 

following:

Plaintiff (sic) objects to the Magistrate's finding of contempt. 

Defendant also reserves the right to object to other Orders 

contained within the Decision, after full review of the 

transcript.

Defendant respectfully requests more time to allow for the 

preparation of the transcript. Once the transcript is complete, 

counsel for Defendant will review said transcript, which will 

allow counsel to lay a more solid foundation and appropriately 

supplement the objection.

{¶ 11} On July 24, 2023, Mother filed supplemental objections to the magistrate's 

decision finding her in contempt. This included Mother arguing against the magistrate's 

decision finding her in contempt for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on 

Friday, January 21, 2022 and on the July 4, 2022 holiday. This also included Mother 

arguing against the magistrate's decision finding her in contempt for scheduling activities 

for Anna that occurred during Father's parenting time without first discussing the matter 

with Father. This was in addition to Mother arguing against the magistrate's decision 

3. The "numerous motions" the magistrate was referring to included Mother filing her own motion for 

contempt against Father, as well as Mother filing a motion to modify Father's child support obligation, a 

motion requesting the domestic relations court conduct an interview with Anna, and a motion to modify her 

and Father's shared parenting plan.
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 6 -

ordering her to pay $2,250 in attorney fees and litigation expenses to Father.

{¶ 12} On August 10, 2023, the domestic relations court issued a decision on 

Mother's objections. Within that decision, the domestic relations court initially overruled 

Mother's objection to the magistrate's decision finding her in contempt for denying Father 

his parenting time with Anna on Friday, January 21, 2022. In so doing, the domestic 

relations court determined that the parties' shared parenting plan, along with the domestic 

relations court's own applicable "Basic I" parenting time schedule, did not "give Mother 

the authority to override Father's decision on the events of a particular weekend." The 

domestic relations court instead found the language set forth within its "Basic I" parenting 

time schedule for children aged 13 years old to 15 years old was:

a statement designed to encourage Father to recognize that, 

on his weekends, a child may have other plans or activities, 

and Father should try to accommodate those other events. 

Thus, it was possible for Father to exercise his weekend time 

that weekend, and therefore [it was] Father, not Mother, [who] 

should have been afforded the choice of whether to use all of 

it or not.

{¶ 13} The domestic relations court also overruled Mother's objection to the 

magistrate's decision finding her in contempt for denying Father his parenting time with 

Anna on the July 4, 2022 holiday. In so holding, the domestic relations court rejected 

Mother's argument that she could not be held in contempt for denying Father his parenting 

time on that date because "no specific motion was filed by Father that alleged contempt 

regarding that holiday." In reaching this decision, the domestic relations court determined 

that Father's motion for contempt: 

sufficiently put Mother on notice of what she needed to defend 

when the matter came before the Court. As a result, Mother's 

argument that an allegation of anticipatory contempt of court 

is not ripe for adjudication, the Court finds that it was when the 

hearing on the motion occurred after the violation.

{¶ 14} The domestic relations court further overruled Mother's objection to the 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 7 -

magistrate's decision finding her in contempt for scheduling activities for Anna that 

occurred during Father's parenting time without first discussing the matter with Father. 

The domestic relations court did this by finding "this was not specifically objected to" in 

Mother's initial objection to the magistrate's decision filed on April 18, 2023. This was in 

addition to the domestic relations court overruling Mother's objection to the magistrate's 

decision ordering her to pay $2,250 in attorney fees and litigation expenses to Father. 

Mother's Appeal and Four Assignments of Error

{¶ 15} On September 12, 2023, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the 

domestic relations court's decision finding her in contempt and ordering her to pay 

attorney fees and litigation expenses to Father. Mother's appeal now properly before this 

court for decision, Mother has raised four assignments of error for review.

Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MOTHER BY 

FINDING MOTHER IN CONTEMPT FOR NOT PROVIDING FATHER PARENTING TIME 

THE WEEKEND OF JANUARY 21, 2022.

{¶ 17} In her first assignment of error, Mother argues the domestic relations court 

erred by finding her in contempt for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on Friday, 

January 21, 2022. We disagree.

Rule of Law: Contempt and R.C. 2705.02(A)

{¶ 18} "Disobedience to court orders may be punished by contempt." Cottrell v. 

Cottrell, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-10-105, 2013-Ohio-2397, ¶ 11. This rule is 

codified in R.C. 2705.02(A), which provides that, a person guilty of any of the following 

acts may be punished as for a contempt, "[d]isobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, 

process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court or officer[.]" "To support a 

contempt finding, the moving party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 8 -

a valid court order exists, that the offending party had knowledge of the order, and that 

the offending party violated such order." Delgado v. Delgado, 12th Dist. Clermont No. 

CA2018-03-007, 2018-Ohio-4938, ¶ 36. "Clear and convincing evidence is 'that measure 

or degree of proof which is more than a mere "preponderance of the evidence," but not 

to the extent of such certainty as is required "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal 

cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as 

to the facts sought to be established.'" State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 

288, 2009-Ohio-5327, ¶ 18, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph 

three of the syllabus.

Standard of Review: Abuse of Discretion

{¶ 19} "This court reviews a domestic relations court's determination of a contempt 

motion for an abuse of discretion." Wiest v. Carmosino, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-

10-073, 2019-Ohio-3536, ¶ 17. "An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of 

law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable." Maloney v. Maloney, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-10-098, 2016-

Ohio-7837, ¶ 14, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). "Most 

cases in which an abuse of discretion is asserted involve claims that the decision is 

unreasonable." Schaible v. Schaible, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-06-029, 2022-

Ohio-4717, ¶ 24. "A decision is 'unreasonable' when there is no sound reasoning process 

to support it." Vaughn v. Vaughn, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2007-02-021, 2007-Ohio6569, ¶ 12, citing AAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment Corp., 

50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). "An arbitrary decision is one that lacks adequate 

determining principle and is not governed by any fixed rules or standard." Crawford v. 

Fisher, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-366, 2015-Ohio-114, ¶ 5. "An unconscionable 

decision may be defined as one that affronts the sense of justice, decency, or 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 9 -

reasonableness." Fernando v. Fernando, 10th Dist. Franklin No. Franklin No. 16AP-788, 

2017-Ohio-9323, ¶ 7.

Mother's Argument and Analysis

{¶ 20} Mother argues the domestic relations court erred by finding her in contempt 

for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on Friday, January 21, 2022 because

Father received parenting time with Anna beginning the next morning, Saturday, January 

22, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. through Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Therefore, 

according to Mother, the domestic relations court erred by finding her in contempt for 

denying Father his parenting time with Anna on Friday, January 21, 2022 because "the 

minimum suggested weekend parenting time schedule of one overnight and day was 

adhered to." However, just as the domestic relations court found, Mother's understanding 

of what is required by the domestic relations court's "Basic I" parenting time schedule for 

a 13-through-15-year-old child like Anna is flawed. 

{¶ 21} Contrary to Mother's claim, the domestic relation court's "Basic I" parenting 

time schedule for Anna recommended Father, as the nonresidential parent, to continue 

having parenting time with Anna in accordance with the same parenting time schedule 

that Father had with Anna when she was between the ages of two and 12 years, if 

possible. That being, every Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and on alternate 

weekends beginning on Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. The only difference 

between the two schedules⎯the two-to-12-year-old schedule and the 13-through-15-

year-old schedule⎯was the domestic relations court's notice to both Mother and Father 

that they "should respect [Anna's] need to spend time with peers and in organized 

activities, and less time with each [of them], especially during weekends and summer 

holidays," thereby making "[f]lexibility in scheduling * * * necessary." But, even then, 

neither the parties' shared parenting plan nor the domestic relations court's "Basic I" 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 10 -

parenting time schedule, provided Anna with the ultimate authority over her schedule, 

irrespective of what Father may (or may not) have planned during his weekend parenting 

time with her. This includes Father's parenting time with Anna on Friday, January 21, 

2022. 

{¶ 22} Rather, the domestic relations court's "Basic I" parenting time schedule for 

the then 13-through-15-year-old Anna simply noted that it would be "preferable" for both 

Mother and Father to consider Anna's wishes "[w]hen possible" and "as long as the 

parents agree." Father clearly did not agree with Mother as it relates to Anna's wishes 

for Friday, January 21, 2022. The fact that Father received parenting time with Anna 

beginning on Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. through Sunday, January 23, 2022 

at 6:00 p.m. does not change this fact. Again, the domestic relation court's "Basic I" 

parenting time schedule for Anna recommended Father, as the nonresidential parent, to 

continue having parenting time with Anna in accordance with the same parenting time 

schedule that Father had with Anna when she was between the ages of two and 12, if 

possible. That being, every Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and on alternate 

weekends beginning on Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. It is only "when 

possible" and "as long as the parents agree" that Father should receive anything less. 

This holds true even if Anna's wishes diverge from that of Father's. It was not error, 

therefore, for the domestic relations to find Mother lacked "the authority to override 

Father's decision on the events of a particular weekend," including that of Friday, January 

21, 2022. 

{¶ 23} In so holding, we note that at the first day of the two-day hearing on Father's 

motion for contempt, Father testified that he did not "think it's too much to ask for a parent 

to tell a thirteen year old girl what they can or can't do." Father also testified that:

In this case, I have shown time and time, again, where I do 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 11 -

respect [Anna's wishes for what she does during his weekend 

parenting time]. But in the case in question, I did not. It 

doesn't say that every time your teenage daughter asks can I 

go out Friday night, you have to say yes. 

{¶ 24} This is in addition to Father testifying that nowhere within the domestic 

relations court's "Basic I" parenting time schedule for 13-through-15-year-old children 

"does it say the nonresidential parent will do anything the teenage daughter asks. And 

I'm following my Basic I weekends. So..." We agree with Father. This is because, as 

stated above, neither the parties' shared parenting plan, nor the domestic relations court's 

"Basic I" parenting time schedule, provided either Anna or Mother with the ultimate 

authority over her schedule, irrespective of what Father may (or may not) have planned 

during his weekend parenting time with her. Accordingly, finding no error in the domestic 

relations court's decision finding Mother in contempt for denying Father his parenting time 

with Anna on Friday, January 21, 2022, Mother's first assignment of error lacks merit and 

is overruled.

Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶ 25} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MOTHER BY 

FINDING MOTHER IN CONTEMPT WHERE NO MOTION RELATING TO THE 

CONTEMPT WAS EVER FILED OR SPECIFICALLY PLED.

{¶ 26} In her second assignment of error, Mother argues the domestic relations 

court erred by finding her in contempt for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on 

the July 4, 2022 holiday. To support this claim, Mother initially argues that it was error for 

the domestic relations court to find her in contempt for denying Father his parenting time 

with Anna on this holiday because the "first reference to the Fourth of July at all was 

during the trial in the within proceedings." We disagree. This is because, while not 

explicit, Father's motion for contempt specifically stated that Mother should be found in 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 12 -

contempt for "clearly and unambiguously" notifying him that she would be denying him 

extended parenting time with Anna during the then upcoming summer of 2022. Given the 

notice that Father provided to Mother, this included, but was not limited to, Mother denying 

Father his parenting time with Anna on the impending July 4, 2022 holiday. Therefore, 

just as the domestic relations court found, and with which we agree, Father's motion for 

contempt "sufficiently put Mother on notice of what she needed to defend when the matter 

came before the Court." Mother's claim otherwise lacks merit.

{¶ 27} Also lacking merit is Mother's claim that the domestic relations court erred 

by finding her in contempt for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on the July 4, 

2022 holiday because Father's motion for contempt was filed approximately three months 

prior to that date, on April 12, 2022, thereby rendering Father's contempt motion a request 

for "anticipatory contempt" based upon her "prospective conduct" rather than on any past 

conduct on her part. It is well established that "'[t]here is no doctrine of anticipatory 

contempt in our legal system. An adjudication of contempt relates to past conduct, not 

prospective conduct.'" Hetterick v. Hetterick, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-02-002, 2013-

Ohio-15, ¶ 42, quoting Kirk v. Kirk, 172 Ohio App. 3d 404, 2007-Ohio-3140 ¶ 5 (3rd Dist.). 

{¶ 28} However, just as the domestic relations court found, "Mother's argument 

that an allegation of anticipatory contempt of court is not ripe for adjudication, the Court 

finds that it was when the hearing on the motion occurred after the violation." We agree. 

This makes sense when considering the domestic relations court issued its decision 

finding Mother in contempt for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on the July 4, 

2022 holiday over a year later, on August 23, 2023, well after Mother had, in fact, denied 

Father his parenting time with Anna on that date. Therefore, contrary to Mother's claim, 

the domestic relations court did not err by finding Mother in contempt for denying Father 

his parenting time with Anna on the July 4, 2022 holiday where Father's motion for 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 13 -

contempt was filed prior to that date. Mother's claim otherwise again lacks merit.

{¶ 29} In so holding, we note that this decision shall be limited to the specific facts 

and circumstances of this case and should not in any way be considered as this court 

approving contempt motions being filed based solely upon one party's belief that the other 

party is going to violate the court's order at some point in the future. "To hold otherwise 

would result in the dockets of the courts being filled with antagonistic parties filing motions 

to show cause merely because they believe the other party is going to violate the court's 

orders." Kirk, 2007-Ohio-3140 at ¶ 5. In this case, however, the record indicates that 

Mother "clearly and unambiguously" notified Father that she would be denying him 

extended parenting time with Anna during the then upcoming summer of 2022. This 

included, but was not limited to, Father's parenting time with Anna on the impending July 

4, 2022 holiday. Therefore, the domestic relations court's contempt finding, which 

occurred long after the contempt actually occurred in this case, is neither anticipatory nor 

error that necessitates reversal.

{¶ 30} Mother's express notice to Father that she would be denying Father his 

parenting time with Anna on the July 4, 2022 holiday prompted Father to file his motion 

for contempt in hopes that the domestic relations court could resolve the issue prior to 

that date. We cannot fault Father for filing his motion for contempt prematurely given 

Mother's prior history of denying Father his parenting time with Anna. This is particularly 

true here when considering the July 4, 2022 holiday was the lone prospective date in 

which Father's motion for contempt was based, whereas others were past dates in which 

there was no dispute that Mother had already denied Father his parenting time with 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 14 -

Anna.4 Accordingly, finding no error in the domestic relations court's decision finding 

Mother in contempt for denying Father his parenting time with Anna on the July 4, 2022 

holiday, Mother's second assignment of error also lacks merit and is overruled.

Assignment of Error No. 3:

{¶ 31} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT MOTHER DID NOT 

SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO THE FINDING OF CONTEMPT RELATING TO 

ENROLLMENT OF THE MINOR CHILD IN ACTIVITIES.

{¶ 32} In her third assignment of error, Mother argues the domestic relations court 

erred by finding she had not specifically objected, as part of her original and supplemental 

objections to the magistrate's decision filed on April 18 and July 24, 2023, respectively, 

to the magistrate's decision finding her in contempt for scheduling activities for Anna that 

occurred during Father's parenting time without first discussing the matter with Father. 

We agree with Mother. That is to say, we agree that Mother specifically raised this issue 

as part of her supplemental objections to the magistrate's decision filed with the domestic 

relations court on July 24, 2023. 

{¶ 33} However, contrary to Mother's claim, the fact that Mother raised this issue 

as part of her supplemental objections to the magistrate's decision does not necessarily 

mean this matter must be reversed and remanded to the domestic relations court for 

consideration of the issue. This is because, although raised as part of her supplemental 

objections, Mother never raised any challenge, at either the first or second day of the twoday hearing on Father's motion for contempt, to the question of whether Mother could be 

found in contempt for scheduling activities for Anna that occurred during Father's 

4. The past dates included Friday, January 21, 2022 as discussed under Mother's first assignment of error, 

as well as October 29 through October 31, 2022, days in which Father later received make-up parenting 

time with Anna from Mother.
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 15 -

parenting time without first discussing the matter with Father. By failing to object in the 

first instance, Mother implicitly acquiesced to that issue being litigated and made a part 

of what the magistrate was to decide when ruling on Father's motion for contempt. 

{¶ 34} In the absence of a timely objection at the two-day hearing held on Father's 

contempt motion, and when considering there is a complete lack of any reluctance on 

Mother's part to allow Father to testify on the issue of whether Mother could be found in 

contempt for scheduling activities for Anna during Father's parenting time without first 

discussing the matter with Father, we find Mother has waived the right to contest this 

issue on appeal. This holds true even though Mother raised that issue as part of her

supplemental objections to the magistrate's decision filed with the domestic relations 

court on July 24, 2023. See generally Courtney v. Courtney, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 94-

T-5049, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5423, *10 (Dec. 2, 1994) ("In the absence of a timely 

objection, appellant has waived the right to contest this issue on appeal. Certainly, this 

should still be the case when there is a complete absence of even a hint of any reluctance 

to the taking of testimony"). 

{¶ 35} In so holding, we note the well-established principle that, "[u]nder the invited 

error doctrine, a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself 

invited or induced the trial court to make." Klein v. Dietz, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 95 CA 

47, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6196, *22 (Dec. 16, 1998). Such is the case here. It was 

Mother's failure to object, at either the first or second day of the two-day hearing on 

Father's motion for contempt, that ultimately resulted in the question of whether Mother

should be found in contempt for scheduling activities for Anna during Father's parenting 

time without first discussing the matter with Father being litigated and presented to the 

magistrate for decision. Therefore, finding no error that warrants reversal of the domestic 

relations court's decision, Mother's third assignment of error likewise lacks merit and is 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 16 -

overruled.

Assignment of Error No. 4:

{¶ 36} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MOTHER IN 

AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO FATHER BASED UPON IMPROPER 

FINDINGS OF CONTEMPT.

{¶ 37} In her fourth assignment of error, Mother argues the domestic relations 

court erred by ordering her to pay attorney fees and litigation expenses to Father. We 

disagree.

Rule of Law: Attorney Fees, Litigation Expenses, and R.C. 3105.73(B)

{¶ 38} Pursuant to R.C. 3105.73(B), in any postdecree motion or proceeding that 

arises out of an action for divorce, a domestic relations court is authorized to "award all 

or part of reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses to either party if the court 

finds the award equitable." In determining whether such an award is equitable, the 

domestic relations court "may consider the parties' income, the conduct of the parties, 

and any other relevant factors the court deems appropriate, but it may not consider the 

parties' assets." Id. However, although statutorily authorized to do so, the domestic 

relations court is not obligated to make such an award in every case. Davis v. Davis, 6th 

Dist. Wood No. WD-15-028, 2016-Ohio-1388, ¶ 31. The decision instead rests within the 

domestic relations court's sound discretion. Theurer v. Foster-Theurer, 12th Dist. Warren 

Nos. CA2008-06-074 and CA2008-06-083, 2009-Ohio-1457, ¶ 57. 

{¶ 39} Given these principles, it is now well established that the domestic relations 

court's "decision to award attorney fees will be reversed only if it amounts to an abuse of 

discretion." Coomes v. Coomes, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2019-10-076, 2020-Ohio3839, ¶ 12. "An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law; it implies that the trial 

court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably." Combs v. Ellington, 12th Dist. 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 17 -

Butler CA2022-01-001, 2022-Ohio-3514, ¶ 18, citing Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219. 

"The vast majority of cases in which an abuse of discretion is asserted involve claims that 

the decision is unreasonable." Bonifield v. Bonifield, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-02-

022, 2021-Ohio-95, ¶ 11. "A decision is 'unreasonable' when there is no sound reasoning 

process to support it." Vaughn, 2007-Ohio-6569 at ¶ 12.

Mother's Argument and Analysis

{¶ 40} Mother argues that, since the domestic relations court's decision finding her 

in contempt was "not proper," the domestic relations court's order requiring her to pay 

attorney fees and litigation expenses to Father was also not proper. We agree that, had 

the domestic relations court erred by finding Mother in contempt, upholding the domestic 

relations court's order requiring Mother to pay attorney fees and litigation expenses to 

Father would be inequitable. See Manker v. Manker, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2005-

12-106, 2006-Ohio-6545, ¶ 25 (finding a domestic relations court's decision ordering 

appellant to pay attorney fees to appellee was "inequitable" where the award of attorney 

fees "was based on the contempt finding which we found was error in the first assignment 

of error"). However, as noted above when overruling Mother's first, second, and third 

assignments of error, the domestic relations court's decision finding Mother in contempt 

was proper, thereby rendering Mother's argument without merit. 

{¶ 41} Moreover, to the extent that Mother is arguing the domestic relations court's 

decision is impossible to decipher, thus making it "impossible to know whether there was 

a multiplication of the fee awarded based upon the number of original contempt findings," 

we agree with the domestic relations court when it stated, "[r]egarding that argument, the 

Court finds the attorney fee was not multiplied because of multiple violations. The amount 

awarded was the same as it would have been for just one violation." Mother's argument 

otherwise lacks merit. Accordingly, finding no merit to any of the arguments raised by 
Warren CA2023-09-073

- 18 -

Mother in support of her fourth assignment of error, including those arguments raised by 

Mother not directly addressed herein, Mother's fourth assignment of error similarly lacks 

merit and is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶ 42} For the reasons outlined above, and finding no merit to any of Mother's four 

assignments of error presented to this court for review, Mother's appeal from the domestic 

relations court's decision granting Father's motion for contempt and ordering Mother to 

pay attorney fees and litigation expenses to Father is denied. 

{¶ 43} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.