Opinion ID: 2630007
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interference with Michael and Bryanna's relationship

Text: The trial court also found an abuse of authority that has let emotional involvement get in the way of [Laurie's] ability to allow an open, frequent, loving relationship and has interfered with that by making decisions and taking actions unilaterally and . . . interfering with or not facilitating the communication that had become a pattern. Similarly, Judge Savell found that Laurie failed to adequately co-parent by relying upon the employee, rather than Michael, to babysit Bryanna, and that her irrational and emotional responses obstructed communication and deepened mutual mistrust. Rather than make specific findings regarding particular symptoms of Laurie and Michael's antagonism, such as the number of missed phone calls, the court stressed it was more important to examine the behavior of the parties in what each side acknowledges to have become a practice. The judge thought Laurie viewed Michael as a pain in the neck and figured it was easier not to deal with him. Consequently, she let such feelings get in the way of Michael and Bryanna's relationship. On appeal, Laurie seems to argue that there was no interference because Michael enjoyed ample visitation. She notes that he enjoyed 171 overnights in 2003, that she regularly accommodated his scheduling needs, and that she even let him stay in the Witmers' guest house on occasion to be closer to Bryanna. She also claims that any interferences with babysitting were at best technical violations of the order. These arguments miss the mark. The point is not whether Michael has had enough visitation and contact  the question is whether Laurie's acts interfered with the relationship. There was testimony suggesting that she arbitrarily refused consent for Michael to take Bryanna on a Canadian vacation. Moreover, Michael testified that Laurie interfered with his babysitting opportunities seventy-two times and his telephone contact forty-four times. While she argues that some of these instances may be exaggerated or unfounded, she generally gives no response or excuse for her actions, and even concedes that some were violations of the custody order (when she called them merely technical). In light of the evidence that Laurie obstructed Michael from co-parenting, we conclude that the trial court's finding of interference was not clearly erroneous.