Court Opinion

ID: 9376947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 15:06:12.845576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:10.606836
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Thompson v. Thompson, 2023-Ohio-667.]

                                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                         CLINTON COUNTY

 VANESSA J. THOMPSON,                            :
                                                        CASE NO. CA2022-05-014
       Appellee,                                 :
                                                               OPINION
                                                 :              3/6/2023
    - vs -
                                                 :

 MICHAEL P. THOMPSON,                            :

       Appellant.                                :

             APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                        DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
                             Case No. DRA 19000316

Rose & Dobyns Co., LPA, and Scott B. Evans, for appellee.

Smith, Meier & Webb, LPA, and Andrew P. Meier, for appellant.

       M. POWELL, J.

       {¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Thompson ("Father"), appeals a decision of the Clinton

County Court of Common Pleas designating appellee, Vanessa Thompson ("Mother"),

residential parent and legal custodian of the parties' children, awarding spousal support to

Mother, and finding Father in contempt of court for interfering with Mother's parenting time.
                                                                                  Clinton CA2022-05-014

        {¶ 2} The parties were married on September 25, 2007. Two sons, Leo and Max,

and a daughter, Nina, were born issue of the marriage.1 On September 18, 2019, Mother

filed a complaint for divorce. Leo was almost 12 years old; Max was almost 11 years old;

Nina was almost five years old.

        {¶ 3} On September 24, 2019, a temporary order was filed, designating Mother as

the children's residential parent, providing Father with parenting time, and ordering Father

to pay temporary child support of $1,571.01 per month. At the time, the parties were still

residing together.       On October 8, 2019, a modified temporary order was journalized,

designating both parties as residential parent for the children, suspending Father's child

support obligation, ordering Father to pay all household expenses and the payment for the

Hummer (the vehicle driven by Mother), and ordering both parties to contribute $200 a

month for child expenses. A guardian ad litem ("GAL") was subsequently appointed for the

children.

        {¶ 4} Mother moved for exclusive use of the marital home after Father vacated the

home to reside with his girlfriend. The trial court granted the motion on December 5, 2019.

On December 18, 2019, Father's temporary parenting time with the children was modified

to provide him parenting time on Tuesdays and Thursdays after school until 8:00 p.m. and

every other weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. On November 3,

2020, a hearing was held before a magistrate during which spousal support and the

allocation of parental rights and responsibilities were disputed. Both parties sought custody

of the children.

        {¶ 5} In December 2020, an altercation occurred between Mother and Leo over

Leo's use of his cellphone late at night. Leo told Mother he did not have to get off his phone

1. For privacy and readability purposes, we refer to the children using fictitious names.
                                                     -2-
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

because she did not pay for the phone. Leo was struck in the neck as the two were

struggling over the phone. A couple days later, on December 16, 2020, Leo came home

from school complaining he could not breathe. Mother took him to an urgent care facility

and advised Father who went to the urgent care facility. Apparently, Leo was experiencing

a panic attack. Leo went home with Father from urgent care; the next day (a Thursday),

Father picked up Max and Nina for his scheduled parenting time. On December 19, 2020,

during Father's parenting time, Leo was holding his stomach and complained his "head

would not stop." Father took Leo to Children's Hospital. The hospital's visit summary listed

anxiety, gastroesophageal reflux disease ("GERD"), and constipation as diagnoses as well

as "suspected physical abuse." The visit summary made no mention of injury or the

allegations of physical abuse and did not include a substantiation of physical abuse. Father

did not return the children to Mother at the conclusion of his parenting time on Sunday

December 20, 2020.

       {¶ 6} On December 23, 2020, Father moved to suspend Mother's parenting time

with the children "until a hearing can be held in this matter." Father kept the children through

the Christmas holidays; Mother did not see the children again until mid-January 2021.

Mother moved to have Father held in contempt for denying her parenting time. Father

moved for an in-camera interview of the children on the ground they were abused in

Mother's home. On January 13, 2021, the magistrate appointed Dr. William Kennedy to

conduct a custody evaluation.

       {¶ 7} On June 22, 2021, a hearing was held before the magistrate. Father, Mother,

and Dr. Kennedy testified; the GAL did not testify. In her July 2020 report, the GAL

recommended that Mother be designated the children's residential parent and legal

custodian. Dr. Kennedy recommended that Father be designated the children's residential

parent and legal custodian if Mother did not seek and receive significant mental health

                                              -3-
                                                                   Clinton CA2022-05-014

treatment to address her parenting issues and relationship with the children. In the event

those recommendations were followed, Dr. Kennedy recommended that the parties have

equal parenting time; in the event they were not, Dr. Kennedy recommended that Father be

designated the children's residential parent and legal custodian. On June 24, 2021, the

parties agreed to modify the temporary order pending a decision from the magistrate.

Specifically, Father was ordered to pay Mother $1,000 a month beginning December 1,

2020, with credit for payments made by him after December 1, 2020, for real estate taxes,

mortgage, Hummer payments, and other household expenses.

       {¶ 8} On October 20, 2021, the magistrate's decision was journalized.            The

magistrate designated Mother as the children's residential parent and legal custodian,

ordered Father to pay $1,056.71 a month in child support effective January 1, 2021, ordered

Father to pay $600 a month in spousal support for 48 months, beginning November 1, 2021,

and found Father in contempt for denying Mother parenting time between mid-December

2020 and mid-January 2021. The magistrate did not credit Father for the payments he

made between September 24, 2019, and the October 20, 2021 magistrate's decision.

Father filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On May 16, 2022, the trial court

overruled Father's objections, adopted the magistrate's decision, and journalized a decree

of divorce consistent with the magistrate's decision.

       {¶ 9} Father now appeals, raising three assignments of error.

       {¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 1:

       {¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOCATING PARENTAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PARTIES' MINOR CHILDREN.

       {¶ 12} Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion by designating Mother

as the children's residential parent and legal custodian. Father asserts the trial court

ignored Dr. Kennedy's recommendation that Father be designated the children's residential

                                             -4-
                                                                        Clinton CA2022-05-014

parent and legal custodian, Dr. Kennedy's description of Mother's relationship with the

children as "toxic," and Dr. Kennedy's concerns about Mother's mental health.

       {¶ 13} R.C. 3109.04 governs a trial court's allocation of parental rights and

responsibilities. Of paramount concern in any custody determination is the best interest of

the child. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-08-078, 2022-Ohio-1805, ¶

42. To determine what is in the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the trial

court to consider all relevant factors. Ackley v. Haney, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2021-07-

017, 2022-Ohio-2382, ¶ 15. These factors include, but are not limited to: (1) the wishes of

the parents; (2) the child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's parents, siblings,

and other persons who may significantly affect the child's best interest; (3) the child's

adjustment to home, school, and community; (4) the mental and physical health of all

persons involved; (5) the parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting

time rights; (6) whether either parent has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any criminal

offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an abused child or a neglected child;

and (7) whether the residential parent has continuously and willfully denied the other

parent's court-ordered parenting time. No single factor is determinative of the best interest

of a child; rather, the determination should be made in light of the totality of the

circumstances. Vaughn at ¶ 42.

       {¶ 14} A trial court has broad discretion in allocating parental rights and

responsibilities and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Seng v.

Seng, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2007-12-120, 2008-Ohio-6758, ¶ 16. "The discretion a

trial court enjoys in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the

nature of the proceeding and the impact the court's determination has on the lives of the

parties concerned." Grover v. Dourson, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2018-07-007, 2019-Ohio-

2495, ¶ 15. So long as there is competent and credible evidence in the record to support

                                               -5-
                                                                                Clinton CA2022-05-014

the custody determination, the trial court's decision will stand because the court has had

the best opportunity "to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness," which

may not easily translate to the written record. Seng at ¶ 16; Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio

St.3d 415, 418.

        {¶ 15} In designating Mother the residential parent and legal custodian of the

children, the trial court considered and discussed each of the relevant R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)

best-interest factors in light of the evidence presented at both hearings. Throughout its

discussion, the trial court referred to the GAL's July 2020 report, Dr. Kennedy's March 2021

custody evaluation, and Dr. Kennedy's testimony.2

        {¶ 16} The GAL's investigation included meeting with the children, Mother, Father,

and some of the children's teachers. In her report, the GAL noted that there was a strong

bond between Mother and the children, that Father wanted "full custody with 50/50 on

visits," that both parents loved their children, and that the parents did not get along.

        {¶ 17} The report stated that the children all liked the parenting schedule then in

place when the GAL first interviewed the children. Subsequently, Father contacted the GAL

and informed her that the children wanted to talk to her again because they were upset with

what they had initially told her. The GAL then interviewed each child individually. Leo and

Max told the GAL they were talking to her again because Father wanted them to. The boys

stated that Father had explained that the current parenting schedule was neither equal nor

right and that they were only "visiting" him. One of the boys told the GAL that she had not

explained custody to him but that Father had. Max told the GAL he changed his mind after

talking to his brother and Father. In her report, the GAL expressed concern that a child told

her she had not explained custody, a legal term, to him, and that the "children thought

2. We note that at the time of oral arguments, neither the GAL's report nor Dr. Kennedy's evaluation had been
included in the record provided on appeal. They were, however, received thereafter.
                                                    -6-
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

seeing their dad on Tuesdays, Thursdays and every other weekend was equal, until dad

explained custody."    Based on the foregoing, the GAL recommended that Mother be

designated residential parent and legal custodian of the children.

       {¶ 18} In his March 2021 report and during the June 2021 hearing, Dr. Kennedy

described specific concerns he had regarding Mother's relationship with the children and

the contentious relationship between Mother and Father.

       {¶ 19} The report described Father's relationship with the children as positive,

supportive, nurturing, and rewarding. Dr. Kennedy found no evidence of parental alienation

by either parent and noted that while the relationship between Mother and Leo was

damaged and problematic, it was likely Father did little to help it and may do things that

undermine the relationship. The report described Mother's relationship with the children as

fluctuating drastically between extremely positive, caring, supportive, and compassionate

to hostile, disrespectful, toxic, and tumultuous. In particular, exchanges between Mother

and Leo involved mutual name-calling.          Nonetheless, the report indicated that the

exchanges between Mother and the children were overall more often positive, non-

conflictual, caring, and nurturing than hostile. Apparently, the December 2020 altercation

between Mother and Leo was recorded and Dr. Kennedy was able to listen to a portion of

the exchange. He noted there was a bi-directional escalation of the hostilities, with Mother

yelling and Leo mocking, yelling, and taunting. Mother acknowledged that her name-calling

during a heated exchange with Leo was wrong and that she was not proud of her behavior.

       {¶ 20} Mother's test scores indicate that she is extremely stress intolerant and stress

reactive, worry prone, and insecure. Mother is an emotionally responsive person and likely

to be suspicious and less trusting. The child custody litigation increased her level of distrust

and feeling of persecution. Dr. Kennedy explained that children will try to pull a parent off

balance because they can obtain what they want in doing so. Dr. Kennedy testified that

                                              -7-
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

Mother needs to regulate her emotions before reacting to prevent further escalation, needs

to have consequences in place and understand that physical aggression only worsens

matters, and needs both individual therapy and family counseling to learn how to control

her reactiveness, anger, and anxiety. Dr. Kennedy stated that Mother likely needed 12 to

16 sessions of individual therapy; however, if Mother sought treatment and had a couple of

sessions, this was sufficient to mitigate his concerns regarding her reactive behaviors.

       {¶ 21} Father's test scores show that he presents himself both in an extremely

positive light, without many minor faults and shortcomings most people acknowledge, and

as a remarkably well-adjusted individual. Dr. Kennedy noted that Father may be unwilling

to self-examine his role in difficult situations of prolonged distress, that is, that he is less

likely to be introspective and look into whether he may have facilitated or caused a situation,

inadvertently or directly. Dr. Kennedy noted Father's hostile bias toward Mother, explaining

that Father sees Mother's behavior and conduct as either positive or negative. If there is

any gray area, Father assumes that Mother is acting intentionally and maliciously for

negative reasons. Consequently, because Father is so convinced that Mother routinely

engages and has engaged in abusing the children, regardless of previous unsubstantiated

allegations, he is unable to consider any possible alternate explanations and is unlikely to

consider the veracity or motives behind any negative comments made by the children about

Mother. Dr. Kennedy opined that Father's hostile bias "significantly impairs [the parties']

ability to work in unison for the betterment of the children." Dr. Kennedy testified he did not

see any reportable issues involving abuse. Furthermore, in March 2021, a Children's

Services representative informed Dr. Kennedy that multiple investigations had been opened

in the past, that all were closed as being unfounded, and that there were no pending, open

investigations.

       {¶ 22} Dr. Kennedy noted that when asked, Father was unable to list any positive

                                              -8-
                                                                    Clinton CA2022-05-014

parenting traits or any past positive behaviors of Mother. Furthermore, when asked whether

Mother loves the children, Father took a long time before answering, "I don't see how she

could," and when pressed further on the matter, eventually stated, "I guess so, in her own

way."    By contrast, Mother spontaneously and immediately listed several positive

characteristics and traits of Father and stated that Father genuinely loves and cares for all

three children. Dr. Kennedy described the parents' communication as highly conflictual and

made worse by texting as both parties tended to misinterpret the tone of the other's text

messages.

        {¶ 23} Dr. Kennedy testified that both Max and Nina have some anxiety, that Leo

has an anxiety disorder that needs to be treated behaviorally and cognitively, and that the

family needs to engage in family counseling to learn how to interact with one another in a

positive manner. All three children clearly indicated that they wanted to see and stay with

both parents; the boys' biggest concern with parenting time was not the amount of time but

rather, that the schedule was too fractured, requiring an "exhausting going back and forth

all the time." The bond between the children was strong and positive; the children's bond

with each parent was likewise strong and positive.

        {¶ 24} Based upon the foregoing, Dr. Kennedy recommended that Mother receive

both mental health treatment and family counseling, and that treatment should be continued

until the treatment provider and Mother mutually agreed the treatment goals had been met.

In the event those recommendations were followed, Dr. Kennedy recommended that the

parties have equal parenting time; in the event they were not, Dr. Kennedy recommended

that Father be designated the children's residential parent and legal custodian.

        {¶ 25} Testimony at the November 3, 2020 hearing revealed that the children

struggled with virtual schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic but that they were doing

better, and that Leo and Nina both suffered physical injuries in Mother's care while playing

                                             -9-
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

with other children (a broken arm for Nina, a chipped tooth and leg injury for Leo). Father

denied coaching the children to ask the GAL for equal parenting time and denied explaining

what custody and equal parenting time mean, stating "there was no sit down explanation of

any kind of legal term." Father lamented he had become "a visiting father" under the

parenting time schedule in place since December 18, 2019. Father acknowledged Mother's

flexibility with his parenting time and occasionally allowing him to "gap" his visitation

weekend to a midweek visitation overnight. He further testified she has never deprived him

of his parenting time.

       {¶ 26} During that same hearing, Mother testified she had been investigated by

Children's Services twice in the past six months. The earlier investigation involved an

allegation of physical abuse regarding one of the children; the latter investigation involved

an allegation that Nina had observed sexual conduct between Mother and her boyfriend.

Mother testified that Nina talked to a child care advocate during the second investigation

and to the GAL during the first investigation, and stated, "It takes a toll on a child." Mother

denied engaging in any sexual activity in Nina's vicinity or presence or abusing the children.

She testified that she had no convictions for domestic violence, abuse of a child, or child

endangering, and that the children have never been removed from her care or custody. At

the time of the hearing, Father was living with his girlfriend, their newborn son, and her two

children. Father denied calling Children's Services regarding the broken arm and chipped

tooth incidents and stated someone else called the agency about the arm injury.

       {¶ 27} During the June 2021 hearing, Father testified he wanted full custody of the

children with standard parenting time for Mother due to concerns about her mental health

and need to seek treatment to address her anger, her poor communication, and

coparenting. Father stated that following the December 19, 2020 visit to Children's Hospital,

a social worker reported the "suspected physical abuse" to Children's Services, triggering

                                             - 10 -
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

an investigation. The suspected physical abuse was ultimately found to be unsubstantiated.

Father admitted contacting Children's Services approximately ten times in the past nine

months. As a result, Leo had spoken to the agency approximately five times, and Max and

Nina a couple of times.        Father admitted that the abuse allegations were never

substantiated. Father acknowledged that he withheld the children from Mother from mid-

December 2020 to mid-January 2021, including on Christmas Day.               Father testified,

however, that his interference with Mother's parenting time was absolutely appropriate and

that he would absolutely do it again.

       {¶ 28} Mother testified she wanted full custody of the children but would be

agreeable to shared parenting if such was the children's desire.           Upon reading Dr.

Kennedy's report, she contacted Solutions to receive an assessment for herself and

arranged for family counseling. No treatment was recommended for Max or Nina; however,

Leo was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. The parties' testimony indicates that Leo is

doing better now that he takes medication and is in counseling for his anxiety. Mother was

evaluated at Solutions and referred to a counselor. Mother was diagnosed with divorce-

related stress, engaged in two counseling sessions, and was provided with palliative tools

when confronted with a stressful situation, such as counting to four and walking away. The

counselor advised Mother to continue with counseling sessions as needed; Mother stated

she would meet with the counselor approximately once a month.

       {¶ 29} Mother testified she was never charged with a crime and Children's Services

did not file an emergency action following her December 2020 altercation with Leo. Mother

stated that the family has been doing a lot better in communicating in the last couple of

months, that she is better at coparenting with Father, and that she is trying to get better for

the children. Mother testified she has apologized to Leo for her name-calling, agreed name-

calling escalates situations, and stated she would do things differently. Mother testified that

                                             - 11 -
                                                                    Clinton CA2022-05-014

she and the boys have verbal disagreements every couple of months, "but not where it's

bad," and that there have been no disagreements lately.

       {¶ 30} In reaching its custody determination, the trial court noted the parties' high-

conflict communication detrimental to the well-being of their children; Father's hostile bias

toward Mother; Mother seeking treatment for her anxiety and divorce-related stress and her

recognition that past reactive behaviors were wrong; the improvement in her relationship

with Leo following counseling; Father's denial of Mother's parenting time for approximately

four weeks, his belief the withholding was appropriate, and his assertion he would do it

again; and the fact that any allegation of suspected child abuse was never substantiated.

       {¶ 31} While testimony at the hearings revealed that Mother has a history of reacting

harshly resulting in verbal and aggressive altercations with the children, the testimony also

shows that Mother took Dr. Kennedy's report seriously and sought counseling to address

her emotional responses. Dr. Kennedy stated that if Mother sought treatment and had a

couple of sessions, this was sufficient to mitigate his concerns regarding her reactive

behaviors. Mother also recognized that she did not properly handle conflict with Father or

the children in the past and is now better at coparenting and handling arguments with the

children.

       {¶ 32} Father's hostile bias toward Mother as described in Dr. Kennedy's report is

evidenced by his reporting Mother to Children's Services for child abuse ten times in nine

months, each time resulting in unsubstantiated allegations. There is no evidence Mother

has willfully denied Father parenting time with the children. In fact, Father acknowledged

Mother's flexibility with his parenting time and testified she has never deprived him of his

parenting time. By contrast, Father willfully denied Mother parenting time with the children

when he withheld the children from Mother for four weeks.            Father considered his

withholding to be absolutely appropriate and vowed to do it again if need be.

                                            - 12 -
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

       {¶ 33} The fact that Father loves his children and wants to be with them does not

change this decision. This is because, as noted above, the primary concern is the children's

best interest, not whether Father loves, cares for, and wants to be with them. See Hall v.

Hall, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-05-091, 2019-Ohio-81, ¶ 26 (a father's "wishes about

the care and control of his children * * * should not be placed above the children's best

interests").

       {¶ 34} After carefully reviewing the record and considering the foregoing, we find that

the trial court weighed all appropriate R.C. 3109.04(F) factors in reaching its custody

decision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in designating Mother as the residential

parent and legal custodian of the parties' three children.

       {¶ 35} Father's first assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 36} Assignment of Error No. 2:

       {¶ 37} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE APPELLANT CREDIT

FOR PAYMENTS HE MADE UNDER THE TEMPORARY ORDER.

       {¶ 38} Father challenges the spousal support award, arguing that the trial court erred

when it failed to give him credit for the "substantial payments" he made during the divorce

proceedings pursuant to the trial court's temporary orders. Conceding that the trial court is

not required to give credit for payments made under a temporary order, Father nevertheless

asserts the court erred by not considering the payments "in some fashion" because they

were "in lieu of temporary spousal support and other financial support." Father seeks a

credit against his spousal support obligation for the payments he made under the temporary

orders, or alternatively, suggests that the 48-month spousal support obligation be reduced

to 24 months.

       {¶ 39} There were three temporary orders and a final order during the pendency of

the case:

                                             - 13 -
                                                                       Clinton CA2022-05-014

   •   The September 24, 2019 temporary order, designating Mother as residential parent

       of the children and ordering Father to pay $1,571.01 per month in child support. At

       the time, the parties were both residing in the marital home.

   •   The October 8, 2019 temporary order, modifying the temporary order above,

       designating both parties as residential parents for the children, suspending Father's

       temporary child support obligation, and ordering him to pay all household expenses

       and the car payments for the Hummer driven by Mother. At some point, Father

       vacated the marital home and Mother was granted exclusive use of the house on

       December 5, 2019.

   •   The June 24, 2021 temporary order, modifying the October 2019 order above and

       ordering Father to pay Mother $1,000 a month beginning December 1, 2020, with

       credit for payments made by Father after December 1, 2020, for real estate taxes,

       mortgage, Hummer payments, and other household expenses.

   •   The May 16, 2022 final decree of divorce ordering Father to pay Mother $1,056.71

       per month in child support effective January 1, 2021, and $600 per month in spousal

       support for 48 months effective November 1, 2021.

       {¶ 40} "A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to award spousal

support, as well as the amount and duration of such award, based on the facts and

circumstances of each case." Spillane v. Spillane, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-206,

2020-Ohio-5052, ¶ 12. Absent an abuse of discretion, a spousal support award will not be

disturbed on appeal. Id. "A trial court has a statutory duty to base a spousal support award

order on a careful and full balancing of the factors in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)." Macknight v.

Macknight, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-07-078, 2022-Ohio-648, ¶ 47.

       {¶ 41} In support of his argument, Father cites Mullett v. Mullett, 9th Dist. Summit

No. 28512, 2017-Ohio-7152, and Falah v. Falah, 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0039-M, 2017-
                                            - 14 -
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

Ohio-1087.

       {¶ 42} In Mullet, the wife appealed the trial court's refusal to credit her for the

mortgage payments she made pursuant to the court's temporary orders and which resulted

in an increase in equity in the marital home. In reversing the trial court's decision, the Ninth

District Court of Appeals noted that no temporary support orders were issued in the case,

that the bulk of the marital property was divided equally and the only remaining large assets

were the marital home, the parties' business and the land on which it was located, and the

wife's inheritance (her separate property), that the husband received the business, a larger

interest in the land, and half of the net proceeds from the sale of the marital home, that the

wife made the mortgage payments from her inheritance and her share of marital gold, and

that the husband did not present any evidence that his expenses increased after he vacated

the marital home.

       {¶ 43} We find that Mullett is inapplicable as it involved distribution and division of

marital property, and not spousal support. Division of marital property is controlled by R.C.

3105.171; spousal support is subject to a different analysis under R.C. 3105.18. See Jones

v. Jones, 4th Dist. Highland No. 20CA3, 2021-Ohio-1498 (a trial court that is dividing marital

property has discretion to consider payments a party made pursuant to temporary orders).

       {¶ 44} In Falah, the husband paid $10,500 in spousal support during the divorce

proceedings pursuant to the trial court's temporary orders. In the final divorce decree, the

trial court assigned all marital debts to the husband, vacated the temporary spousal support

order, awarded spousal support to the wife, and applied a $37,250 credit towards the

husband's permanent spousal support obligation representing the amount he paid on the

wife's dowry. The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision because

the record did not reflect that the trial court considered the temporary spousal support

payments made by the husband in crafting the permanent spousal support order:

                                             - 15 -
                                                                    Clinton CA2022-05-014

             The court vacated the magistrate's temporary spousal support
             order, but, at that point in time, Husband had already paid Wife
             over $10,500 in temporary support. The court neglected to
             address those payments. In light of the fact that the court
             vacated the temporary support order, we must conclude that it
             acted unreasonably in failing to address the temporary support
             that Husband had already paid. Consequently, we must remand
             this matter for the court to address the temporary support
             Husband paid in light of its decision to vacate the order for
             temporary support.

Falah v. Falah, 2017-Ohio-1087 at ¶ 28.

      {¶ 45} We find that Falah is inapplicable. Unlike in Falah, Father's argument is not

that the trial court failed to consider the payments he made pursuant to the temporary

orders, but that he should receive some credit for those payments. Furthermore, Falah

does not stand for the proposition that a spouse is entitled to credit against a spousal

support obligation for temporary spousal support paid during the pendency of the divorce.

Falah only suggests that such temporary payments may be considered by the trial court.

We note that no Ohio courts of appeals, including the Ninth District, has cited Falah for the

proposition that temporary spousal payments must be considered in crafting a final spousal

support order.

      {¶ 46} The record shows that the trial court considered and discussed all of the R.C.

3105.18(C)(1) factors in determining the amount and duration of Father's spousal support

obligation. The factors having the greatest weight are the disparity in the parties' incomes

(Father's income is $92,000; Mother's income is $29,000), the parties' 13-year marriage,

and the fact Mother was a stay-at-home parent for most of the marriage. Consideration of

temporary payments during divorce proceedings is not enumerated as a spousal support

factor in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). Regarding the catchall "any other factor" set forth in R.C.

3105.18(C)(1)(n), the trial court noted, "No testimony on any other relevant factor." The

trial court's failure to explicitly mention the temporary payments made by Father does not

                                            - 16 -
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

mean that the trial court did not consider those payments when it crafted the final spousal

support order, especially considering the court was aware of those payments, having made

the original order and then twice modifying the order during the pendency of the case.

          {¶ 47} Additionally, Father ignores that Mother served as residential parent for the

children for the majority of the case (i.e., from December 2019 forward) with no child

support. Although the September 24, 2019 original temporary order required Father to pay

temporary child support of $1,571.01 per month, that order was modified two weeks later

on October 18, 2019, Father's child support obligation was suspended, and Father was

ordered to pay household and Hummer expenses. On the date she filed her complaint for

divorce, Mother moved for temporary support as follows: "Plaintiff requests that the Court

order the Defendant to continue pay for the household and marital expenses, including

Plaintiff's [Hummer] payment, and pay Plaintiff $500 per month, or in the alternative, order

Defendant to pay spousal support in the amount of $2,100 per month." In only granting

Mother's request that Father pay the household expenses and Hummer payments, the

magistrate's October 18, 2019 order implicitly denied Mother's request for temporary

spousal support. Thus, contrary to Father's assertion, the payments Father made to Mother

during the pendency of this case are as likely in lieu of child support as in lieu of spousal

support.

          {¶ 48} Finally, we note that Father did not seek credit in the trial court for the

payments he made pursuant to the trial court's temporary orders. In particular, when the

magistrate's June 24, 2021 order granted Father credit for any payments made by him after

December 1, 2020, Father did not request that the credit extend to payments he had made

before December 1, 2020, and did not challenge the magistrate's failure to so extend the

credit.    The issue of credit appeared for the first time in Father's objections to the

magistrate's decision. The record also shows that while Father briefly testified about some

                                              - 17 -
                                                                       Clinton CA2022-05-014

payments he made during the divorce proceedings, he did not produce any documentary

evidence showing what he was ordered to pay, the exact amount of what he was required

to pay, and what he actually paid.

      {¶ 49} In light of the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in awarding Mother $600 per month in spousal support for 48 months and failing to credit

Father for the payments he made during the divorce proceedings pursuant to the trial court's

temporary orders.

      {¶ 50} Father's second assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶ 51} Assignment of Error No. 3:

      {¶ 52} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT.

      {¶ 53} Father argues the trial court abused its discretion by finding him in contempt

for denying Mother parenting time with the children from mid-December 2020 until mid-

January 2021.

      {¶ 54} Contempt of court is defined as "disobedience of an order of a court * * * which

brings the administration of justice into disrespect, or which tends to embarrass, impede or

obstruct a court in the performance of its functions." Sparks v. Sparks, 12th Dist. Warren

No. CA2010-10-096, 2011-Ohio-5746, ¶ 11, quoting Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27

Ohio St.2d 55 (1971), paragraph one of the syllabus. To establish contempt, a party must

prove by clear and convincing evidence that a valid court order exists, that the offending

party had knowledge of the order, and that the offending party violated such order. Hetterick

v. Hetterick, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-02-002, 2013-Ohio-15, ¶ 35.

      {¶ 55} The magistrate held a parenting time hearing on December 17, 2019. Father

and Mother were present at the hearing. Pursuant to the magistrate's December 18, 2019

order, Father had parenting time with the children on Tuesdays and Thursdays after school

until 8:00 p.m. and every other weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

                                             - 18 -
                                                                    Clinton CA2022-05-014

The parties followed the order without incident until mid-December 2020 when Father

withheld all three children from Mother until mid-January 2021. The record supports a

finding that the three elements of contempt were met: there was an existing court order for

parenting time; Father had knowledge of the order; and he violated the order by taking

action that prevented Mother from exercising her parenting time.

      {¶ 56} Father argues, however, that he was justified in withholding the children from

Mother because he had a reasonable, good faith belief he was protecting the safety of the

children in light of the physical altercation between Mother and Leo and the Children's

Hospital's "diagnosis of suspected child abuse." Father further claims justification based

upon Dr. Kennedy's report, which was issued in March 2021.

      {¶ 57} 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. Brennan v. Brennan, 5th Dist.

Muskingum No. CT2020-0047, 2021-Ohio-1865, ¶ 37; Steele v. Steele, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 25713, 2013-Ohio-3655, ¶ 20. A trial court's finding of civil contempt will

not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Hetterick, 2013-Ohio-15 at ¶ 37.

A "trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying the good-faith defense when the trial

court properly exercises its discretion to consider all surrounding circumstances and weigh

all factors in deciding whether a parent is in contempt." In re J.H.P., 2d Dist. Montgomery

No. 26097, 2015-Ohio-548, ¶ 19; Hensley v. Hensley, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-08-026, 2009-

Ohio-1738, ¶ 26. Courts have considered and may consider a parent's subsequent actions

taken to protect the child from the perceived threat in determining whether the belief is

reasonable and whether the parent violated the court order in a good faith attempt to protect

the child. Hensley at ¶ 28, 30.

      {¶ 58} In determining that Father was in contempt of court, the magistrate found that

                                            - 19 -
                                                                      Clinton CA2022-05-014

"Father inappropriately withheld the children from Mother for a month. These children

missed parenting time with their Mother during a Christmas season. There is simply no

excuse for Father's denial of this time." The trial court upheld the contempt finding on the

ground that "the unilateral decision of [Father] to withhold parenting time as described on

the record when coupled with his lack of remorse for his decision to violate a court order is

not defensible."

       {¶ 59} We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Father's

good-faith defense and in finding Father in contempt of court for denying Mother's parenting

time with the children for approximately four weeks. Although the Children's Hospital's visit

summary listed "suspected physical abuse" as one of Leo's four diagnoses, the summary

made no mention of injury or the allegations of physical abuse and did not include a

substantiation of physical abuse.     Father testified that following the visit to Children's

Hospital, a social worker reported the "suspected physical abuse" to Children's Services,

triggering an investigation, and that the suspected physical abuse was ultimately found to

be unsubstantiated. Although Father subsequently moved to suspend Mother's parenting

time "until a hearing can be held on this matter," his brief indicates that a hearing "could not

be scheduled on an immediate basis." Father never moved for an emergency hearing or

an emergency order, either prior to unilaterally withholding the children from Mother or after

moving to suspend Mother's parenting time.

       {¶ 60} During the June 2021 hearing, Father admitted contacting Children's Services

ten times in the past nine months and conceded that the abuse allegations were never

substantiated.     Father testified that his interference with Mother's parenting time for

approximately four weeks was absolutely appropriate, that he would absolutely do it again,

and that Mother was not entitled to have her lost parenting time made up.

       {¶ 61} Father claims justification based upon Dr. Kennedy's post-altercation report,

                                             - 20 -
                                                                     Clinton CA2022-05-014

in particular its description of Mother's relationship with the children as toxic. However, in

that report, Dr. Kennedy also stated that it does not matter to Father whether the abuse

allegation was unsubstantiated because he believes that Mother routinely engages and has

engaged in abusing the children, regardless of previous unsubstantiated allegations.

Father's belief is such that he is unable to consider any possible alternate explanations and

is unlikely to consider the veracity or motives behind any negative comments made by the

children about Mother. Dr. Kennedy testified he did not see any reportable issues involving

abuse. Furthermore, he was informed by a Children's Services representative that multiple

investigations had been opened in the past, that all were closed as being unfounded, and

that there were no pending, open investigations. There is no evidence in the record that

the children have been abused or mistreated while in Mother's care during her parenting

time.

        {¶ 62} In light of the foregoing, the trial court's rejection of Father's good-faith

defense and finding Father in contempt of court was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. Father's third assignment of error is overruled.

        {¶ 63} Judgment affirmed.

        S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.

                                            - 21 -