Court Opinion

ID: 9965897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 18:08:36.869744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:51.563721
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re: G.W., 2024-Ohio-1709.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     LUCAS COUNTY

In re G.W., L.W., J.W.                            Court of Appeals No. L-23-1153

                                                  Trial Court No. JC 18268090

                                                  DECISION AND JUDGMENT

                                                  Decided: May 3, 2024

                                          *****

        Jeremy W. Levy and Brianna L. Stephan, for appellant.

                                          *****

        OSOWIK, J.

        {¶ 1} This is an appeal of a May 26, 2023 judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying appellant’s objection to the February 15,

2023 magistrate’s decision granting appellees’ motion to modify the R.C. 3109.11

visitation order applicable to their minor grandchildren, the children of their deceased

son. Rachel Gilbert (“appellant”) is the mother of the children. Barbara and Timothy

Wynkoop (“appellees”) are the paternal grandparents of the children. For the reasons set

forth more fully below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.
       {¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following sole assignment of error:

       “I. The trial court abused its discretion and infringed upon appellant’s

       fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of

       her three children by sua sponte expanding grandparents’ visitations and

       unreasonably restricting mother’s discretion to balance demands on the children’s

       time.”

       {¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. This case stems

from the 2015 passing of appellees’ son, the father of the three minor children. On June

2, 2020, in the wake of intractable discord which arose between the parties related to

appellees’ visitation with their grandchildren, appellees secured an R.C. 3019.11

visitation order, which set forth their right to a baseline quantity of visitation with their

grandchildren.

       {¶ 4} The visitation order established that visitation would occur on the third

weekend of each month, with one additional five-hour monthly visitation, and one

extended weekend visitation each summer. In practice, the efficacy of the order relied

upon good faith cooperation between parties in facilitating the terms of the visitation

order. Unfortunately, conflict between the parties persisted, and regular visitation in

alignment with the order did not occur.

       {¶ 5} In the context of these circumstances, appellees filed two motions to modify

the visitation order, with the motions filed on May 20, 2022, and December 16, 2022,

2.
respectively. On February 13, 2023, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on

the pending motions.

       {¶ 6} Appellee Barbara Wynkoop (“grandmother”), was the first witness to give

testimony at the hearing. The grandmother testified that appellant would frequently

decline to adhere to the regularly scheduled visitation periods due to claimed conflicts

and, in conjunction, would often not provide adequate notice so as to enable a mutually

acceptable alternative visitation period to be successfully scheduled. The record

consistently shows that appellant declined the third weekend of the month visitation to

appellees approximately one dozen times in the course of the relevant two-year

timeframe, reflecting a failure to adhere to the visitation schedule for nearly half of the

weekend visitations.

       {¶ 7} The grandmother further testified that appellant would often implement

visitation schedule changes without any communication to appellees. In addition, she

testified that appellant failed to notify appellees in the Family Wizard online application,

provided by the trial court to facilitate scheduling communications between the parties,

with timely notice of upcoming events and activities of the children, foreclosing the

opportunity for appellees to attend various special events and activities of their

grandchildren.

       {¶ 8} The grandmother also testified that appellant would routinely schedule the

additional, five-hour monthly visitation during times when appellant was aware that

appellees were unavailable due to their employment obligations, often resulting in the

3.
elimination of that additional visitation period. In addition, appellant declined to furnish

the third weekend of the month visitation each December, thereby precluding appellees

from having a holiday season visitation with their grandchildren.

       {¶ 9} Upon inquiry regarding the impetus behind filing their motions for

modification, the grandmother encapsulated, “We would like a set weekend * * * We

would like the Family Wizard to contain all of their activities so that we may attend if we

choose to     * * * I would like to [visit] the kids, especially at Christmastime.”

       {¶ 10} The court next heard testimony from appellant, mother of the minor

children. Appellant acknowledged, “We have a contentious long-standing history of

disagreeing of how much time and what is going to work.” Appellant conceded, “My

kids do enjoy spending time with their grandparents on a regular basis.” When asked if

she operates in good faith when trying to resolve visitation disputes with appellees,

appellant equivocated, “I try.”

       {¶ 11} When appellant was questioned on cross-examination regarding why her

mother was notified of, and attended, the grandparents’ day event at the children’s

school, yet appellees were not likewise notified of the event, so as to similarly be

afforded the opportunity to attend, appellant simply stated, “I am not giving an excuse.”

Appellant further conceded to declining to notify appellees of, or invite appellees to, a

baptism of one of their grandchildren, stating that she excluded appellees from the event,

“Because we have a history of contention.”

4.
       {¶ 12} At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for appellees summarized, “I

would ask the court to seriously consider the modification request that we made. We’re

not interested in [appellant] going to jail. We aren’t interested in her being sanctioned.

We just want a schedule that everybody can live with without fighting back and forth

every single month. It’s not fair to these children.”

       {¶ 13} In response, counsel for appellant argued for maintaining the status quo of

the existing visitation order, despite testimony from all parties attesting to the continuous

difficulties with it, stating, “We’re asking the court keep this [visitation order] in effect

because this is in the best interest of the children.” The parties rested.

       {¶ 14} On February 15, 2023, the magistrate ruled. The magistrate’s decision

outlined the situation presented, stating,

       The petitioners are the paternal grandparents. Father has been deceased

       since 2015. The parties entered into a consent agreement for grandparent

       visitation on June 2, 2020. Grandparents are to have visitation every third

       weekend * * * [Appellant] has moved the third weekend visitation 11 times

       * * * [G]randparents did not get to visit the children the past two

       Decembers * * * The children do not get to visit father’s family for the

       holidays. [Appellant] wants flexibility to schedule the grandparents’ visits.

       The grandparents want stability and scheduled times * * * The additional

       five-hour monthly visitation is contentious to schedule each month.

5.
       {¶ 15} After delineating the chronic visitation issues reflected by the evidence, the

magistrate held, “The court affirms the order that the grandparents shall have visitation

* * * the third weekend of every month. The court affirms the times for the visitation as

currently stated in the agreement.” The court next outlined three modifications of the

visitation order, with each modification designed to alleviate the corresponding, above-

discussed visitation issue, holding,

       If the five-hour monthly additional visitation is to be added to a weekend

       visit, as has been the current routine, the grandparents will return the

       children at 2:00p.m. on Sunday rather than 9:00a.m. [to preserve the

       additional five-hour monthly visitation rather than allow it be merged into

       the weekend visitation] * * * [T]he grandparents shall have one week of

       summer visitation [to enable the single extended summer visitation which

       had been problematic] * * * [T]he grandparents shall have 72 hours of

       visitation during the children’s winter break [to enable a holiday season

       visitation which had been problematic].

       {¶ 16} Appellant objected to the magistrate’s decision, asserting that the decision

did not give her adequate flexibility, and was not in the best interest of the children.

       {¶ 17} On May 26, 2023, the trial court denied appellant’s objection to the

magistrate’s decision. The trial court held, in relevant part,

       The court finds the magistrate’s decision to be in the best interest of the

       minor children, and affirms same. Indeed, the court concurs with the

6.
       magistrate’s findings regarding disharmony between the parties, the need

       for the minor children to know their father’s family, and for mother’s desire

       to have flexibility in the schedule. The court finds, therefore, that the

       magistrate has created an appropriate schedule to address the concerns and

       desires of all parties, and that said schedule is in the best interest of the

       minor children. Based on the foregoing, mother’s objection is denied.

       {¶ 18} This appeal ensued.

       {¶ 19} In the sole assignment of error, appellant alleges that the trial court erred

and abused its discretion in granting appellees’ motion to modify the visitation schedule.

We are not convinced.

       {¶ 20} As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant maintains that the trial court

sua sponte modified the visitation order. This does not align with the record of evidence.

The record shows that appellees filed two motions for modification of the visitation

order. The trial court’s visitation order decision, following a full evidentiary hearing on

same, was in direct response to appellees’ pending motions to modify visitation, rather

than a random, sua sponte action, as suggested by appellant.

       {¶ 21} We review this case on an abuse of discretion basis. As held by this court

in S.S. v. F.M., 2020-Ohio-3827, ¶ 28 (6th Dist.),

       [W]e review the juvenile court’s decision [in response to] the magistrate’s

       decision for an abuse of discretion. See In re L.M.L., 11th Dist. Portage

       No. 2016-P-069, 2017-Ohio-7451, ¶ 20, quoting In re Wiley, 11th Dist.

7.
       Portage No. 2008-P-062, 2009-Ohio-290, ¶ 20 (“In reviewing a trial court’s

       decision to adopt or reject a magistrate’s decision, an appellate court looks

       for an abuse of discretion.”) An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial

       court’s attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable. Blakemore

       v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

       {¶ 22} In conjunction, as this court held in N.E. v. J.E., 2017-Ohio-1149, ¶ 29 (6th

Dist.), “[W]e hold that the trial court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the

visitation issue, which was properly before the court as a result of filing [a motion to

modify] * * * [U]pon the filing of such a motion, and without regard to which party files

it, the trial court is statutorily required to render a decision that is in accord with the best

interest of the child.” (Emphasis added).

       {¶ 23} R.C. 3109.11, which establishes the statutory guidelines concerning the

visitation rights of grandparents and other relatives when a parent of minor children is

deceased, underlies this appeal. R.C. 3109.11 sets forth, in relevant part,

       If either the father or mother of an unmarried minor child is deceased * * *

       In determining whether to grant any person reasonable companionship or

       visitation rights with respect to any child, the court shall consider all

       relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors set forth in

       division (D) of section 3109.051 of the Revised Code.

       {¶ 24} In support of this appeal, with respect to the R.C. 3109.051(D) best interest

factors, appellant acknowledges that the children have had an ongoing relationship with

8.
appellees during their lives and that visitation between them is enjoyed by all of them.

R.C. 3109.051(D)(2). In addition, appellant acknowledges that her home is in close

proximity to appellees’ home, which is located approximately 20 minutes away. R.C.

3109.051(D)(3). It is further acknowledged that the children are active, adjusted, and

engaged at home, at school, and in the community. R.C. 3109.051(D)(4)(5).

       {¶ 25} Nevertheless, pursuant to R.C. 3109.051(D)(15), which establishes the

factor, “The wishes and concerns of the child’s parent,” appellant submits that, “[S]he

prefers the flexibility of the June 2020 order as the children’s lives have become busier

and demands on their time have increased.” Appellant concludes, without evidentiary

support, that because the modified visitation order granted appellees, on an annualized

basis, an additional one-week visitation during the summer, and a designated three-day

visitation during winter break for holiday season visitation, that the, “Increased demands

on the children’s time and imposed greater rigidity, [is] not in the children’s best

interests.” We are not persuaded.

       {¶ 26} The record shows that following the death of their son in 2015, appellees

sought to maintain regular visitation with their grandchildren. The record shows that due

to ongoing discord between the parties, a formal visitation order became necessary. It

was issued on June 2, 2020. The record shows that during the two-year period following

the issuance of the order, visitation disagreements and difficulties persisted. Appellant

declined or deviated from the third weekend of the month visitation with appellees

approximately one-half of the time during that period. In addition, appellant consistently

9.
declined the December weekend visitation, which precluded appellees from a holiday

season visitation with their grandchildren.

       {¶ 27} The record reflects the parties love the children, but that, nevertheless,

persistent antagonisms between them has undermined the visitation schedule set forth in

the visitation order. In response to these undisputedly contentious circumstances, and the

related motions to modify visitation, the trial court affirmed and modified the visitation

order, with each modification specifically designed to remediate the corresponding

visitation issue, as discussed in detail above.

       {¶ 28} Based upon the forgoing, we find that appellant has failed to establish that

the trial court’s restrained modifications of the visitation order, in response to motions to

modify and in an effort to remediate specific, ongoing visitation issues, was arbitrary,

unreasonable, or unconscionable. Wherefore, we find appellant’s assignment of error not

well-taken.

       {¶ 29} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the

costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

10.
                                                                    In re G.W., L.W., J.W.
                                                                       C.A. No. L-23-1153

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                           ____________________________
                                                       JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                               ____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, J.                                    JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                               ____________________________
                                                       JUDGE

       This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
  Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
       version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

11.