IN RE: the DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE OF: Melissa CRAFT (2022)

OPINION

{¶ 1} Jeremy Craft (“Father”) appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for custody of the parties’ minor children and denying his motion to find his former wife, Melissa Craft (“Mother”), in contempt of court for denying him parenting time.

{¶ 2} The parties were granted a dissolution of their marriage in September 2018, but apparently lived together until February 21, 2019. Pursuant to the dissolution, Mother was the residential parent, and the children resided with her in the Minford School District.

{¶ 3} On September 13, 2019, Father filed a pro se motion for change of custody regarding the parties’ four minor children: M.C., born in 2005; G.C., born in 2010; B.C., born in 2012; and L.C., born in 2017. (The parties also have two older sons, I.C. and P.C.) According to Father's motion, Father and Mother resided in Urbana until Mother took G.C., B.C., and L.C. to Minford, leaving M.C. in Urbana. Father asserted that on September 8, 2019, Mother abruptly withdrew M.C. from school in Urbana and enrolled her in school in Minford. Father asserted that Mother's behavior had been “dangerous”; he requested emergency custody and that Mother's visitation be supervised.

{¶ 4} The memorandum in support of Father's motion stated that Mother had been arrested for shoplifting on March 19, 2019, in Minford, and that she had driven her car off the road on April 23, 2019, with M.C. in the vehicle. According to Father, the children reported that Mother had been drinking heavily while taking Atomextin for mental illness, and Mother had lost her nursing license. He also asserted that when their older son, P.C., confronted Mother about her drug use and going out at night, she sent letters to his boarding school in New Jersey “in an attempt to ruin his opportunity at Princeton,” which he had verbally committed to attend. The motion stated that, on September 7, 2019, Father met Mother to drop off M.C. for the weekend while he took P.C. to New Jersey, and Mother subsequently refused to return M.C. to his care. Multiple exhibits were attached to Father's motion, totaling approximately 77 pages.

{¶ 5} On the same day as he filed his motion for a change of custody, Father filed an emergency ex parte motion for an expedited hearing on his motion for custody and a motion for contempt for interference with the parenting time orders filed on September 17, 2018. Father's affidavit stated that Mother had “established a dangerous living environment” for the children and had not allowed Father to have the children for weekends or holidays since July 21, 2019. He stated that he had not seen G.C. since June 16, 2019. Father asserted that Mother stated she would not let him see the children “until he pays her,” but that he has never been late with his child support or spousal support payments.

{¶ 6} On September 17, 2019, the trial court denied Father's ex parte motion and set the matter for a hearing on October 17, 2019. The court also issued a show cause order to Mother.

{¶ 7} On September 20, 2019, counsel for Mother filed a motion for change of parenting time; she requested a termination of Father's parenting time, or that any parenting time be supervised, because Father had kept M.C. in violation of the parenting time order and had placed the children “in harm with drugs and other behavior.” The court indicated that it would consider Mother's motion for change of parenting time at the October 17, 2019 hearing.

{¶ 8} On October 23, 2019, Mother filed a motion to modify parenting time, alleging that the children were in counseling and that the counselor had suggested that it was not in G.C's best interest to visit with Father at that time.

{¶ 9} On October 28, 2019, the court filed an entry stating that the court had met with counsel on October 17, 2019, in lieu of a pretrial hearing, that no agreement had been reached, and that the parties’ decree of dissolution remained in effect. The court also appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”). The court scheduled a final pretrial for December 10, 2019, and an evidentiary hearing for January 22, 2020. On November 1, 2019, the court appointed a different GAL after the initial GAL requested to withdraw due to a conflict.

{¶ 10} On November 7, 2019, Father filed a motion to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the court's September 17, 2018 order. In his affidavit attached to this motion, he stated that he had not seen G.C. since June 2019, and that Mother had denied his parenting time with B.C. and L.C. since July 2019. He asserted that, pursuant to the parties’ parenting plan, he was to have access to all records of treatment of the children, including mental health treatment, and that Mother apparently had one or more of the children in counseling but had not provided Father with notice of this counseling or the name or other contact information for any counselor. Father asserted that while Mother argued in her motion that the counselor had recommended suspending or terminating his parenting time with G.C., Mother had “terminated this parenting time in June and made no attempt to seek this Court's involvement until her October 23, 2019 motion.” Father also asserted that Mother had relocated in February 2019 without filing any relocation notice with the court. Instead, Mother voluntarily “left [M.C.] with me so that [M.C.] could continue to attend Graham Middle School until I left [M.C.] with mother on the weekend of September 7, 2019 and [Mother] refused to return [M.C.] to me. As a result, [M.C.] had to change schools abruptly and unexpectedly.” Father argued that Mother had actively attempted to alienate the children from him, both by keeping them from him and by telling them that he was a bad father.

{¶ 11} The final pretrial was rescheduled to January 13, 2020, at the GAL's request. On November 21, 2019, Father filed a motion to terminate spousal support based upon Mother's cohabitation with a male with whom she was in a romantic relationship. The court indicated that Father's show cause motion and his motion to terminate spousal support would be addressed at the final pretrial.

{¶ 12} In December 2019, the GAL requested a forensic custody evaluation due to the many issues raised by Mother and Father and based upon conversations with the minor children. The GAL recommended that the parties equally split the cost of the evaluation.

{¶ 13} On December 30, 2019, the GAL filed a report. The report stated that the GAL had gathered information from Father, Mother, Samuel Keckler (Mother's live-in boyfriend), I.C., the minor children, Carol Easter (counselor for the minor children), and Brian Antonelli (P.C.’s wrestling coach at Blair Academy in New Jersey). The GAL concluded that further investigation was needed before she could make a formal recommendation. She asserted that, “due to the demonstrated behaviors and discussion with the minor children and [P.C.], and observing the communication between [Mother], [Father] and the children, * * * it would be prudent, and in the children's best interest to engage in a forensic custody evaluation.” The GAL expressed serious concerns about possible parental alienation occurring on both sides. The court stated that it would address the request for a forensic custody evaluation at the January 13, 2020 pretrial.

{¶ 14} On February 26, 2020, the court issued an entry stating that the parties had agreed to a forensic custody evaluation, but subsequent to the hearing, it was determined that the evaluation was “cost prohibited to the parties.” The final pretrial hearing was scheduled for April 22, 2020; due to the pandemic, the final pretrial was converted to an attorney telephone conference. The trial court also noted that Father had been paying spousal support directly to Mother, and it ordered him to pay Mother in the future through the Champaign County Child Support Enforcement Agency.

{¶ 15} On the April 22, 2020 pretrial hearing, the court scheduled the full evidentiary hearing for July 8, 2020. On May 7, 2020, Father filed a motion to terminate child support as to P.C., who was living at boarding school. Father asserted that he was paying P.C.’s tuition at Blair Academy, to which Mother did not contribute, that he (Father) paid for P.C.’s transportation to and from school, and that P.C. stayed with him when he was home for vacation breaks and summer, such that paying child support to Mother for P.C. was unwarranted.

{¶ 16} On June 26, 2020, the GAL filed a supplemental report. She recommended that Mother and Father “receive parenting time as equally as possible,” noting that there was “an issue due to distance, but it appears [Father] has been willing to assist with transportation if it means he is able to see his children.” The GAL recommended counseling between Father and G.C. prior to beginning full visitation, due to the length of time since they had last seen each other. The GAL did not recommend supervised visitation for Father. She indicated that she would “defer to the Court's judgment” on the residential parent, noting that the older children had made clear their desire to reside primarily with Father, and that the children had spent a majority of their lives in Urbana and Graham Schools, which was where Father resided. The GAL also expressed concern about removing L.C. and B.C. from Mother's custody due to their age.

{¶ 17} On July 2, 2020, Father filed a motion for an in camera interview of M.C., B.C., and G.C. On July 6, 2020, Mother requested a continuance due to her spouse's having tested positive for COVID. The court continued the matter until October 1, 2020. On September 30, 2020, Mother requested a second continuance because she had tested positive for COVID and was quarantined. The court rescheduled the matter to November 20, 2020.

{¶ 18} On November 13, 2020, the GAL filed a motion for an extension of time to file her report, and the court granted the motion. The GAL's report was filed on November 16, 2020. The GAL noted that, on September 23, 2020, Father had advised the GAL that Mother had sought a domestic violence protection order against him in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas for herself, Keckler, G.C., B.C., and L.C. The GAL had obtained a copy of the petition, which cited “ ‘multiple occasions from 1999-2018’ where [Father] assaulted [Mother], that he has filed multiple fraudulent police reports, has continued to harass her, and that the last occurrence was when he assaulted her with a bat causing a miscarriage.” The GAL noted that Mother had initially included three of the four children in the request for the protection order, but had omitted M.C., whether “by omission or intention”; Mother then crossed out the three children's names in the petition and proceeded to the hearing seeking a protection order only for herself and her spouse. The GAL noted that the court denied her petition for temporary orders because she had “fail[ed] to provide sufficient evidence to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.” The GAL stated that the evidentiary hearing had been set for October 15, 2020, and Father had appeared with counsel, but Mother had failed to appear, and the petition had been dismissed.

{¶ 19} The GAL contacted Minford Primary School, Jackson Middle School, G.C.’s Minford Pee Wee football and basketball coach (Mr. Caudill), and the Scioto County Health Department to “gather information regarding the children's quarantine orders and the possible violation” of quarantine orders. The GAL reported that G.C.’s coach had voiced concerns about Father's conduct toward the coaches and other people at games; he also stated that Father had never previously attended any of G.C.’s basketball games or events until the case started. Further, the coaches had resorted to blocking Father's number due to his “frequent harassment of them.” The GAL reported that Caudill stated his opinion that G.C. was “fine”; despite receiving paperwork from Mother that G.C. was mentally scarred, Caudill had not observed any issues or behavior problems when dealing with G.C. The GAL stated that she had confirmed that the children had been under quarantine orders with a release date of October 8, 2020. She noted that none of the children had indicated observing any form of violence by Father against Mother, but the older children cited physical violence by Mother toward Father.

{¶ 20} The GAL recommended that, due to the amount of time that had passed without visitation and G.C.’s “repeated expression of fear toward seeing Father,” Mother should be granted custody of G.C., and that any visitation between G.C. and Father should not begin until they had engaged in counseling together. The GAL indicated that M.C. was old enough to express where she wanted to live, which was with Father. Given L.C.’s extremely young age, the GAL recommended that L.C. reside with Mother, despite Mother's failure to comply with the court's visitation order and unwillingness to reschedule missed visits. With respect to B.C., the GAL observed that she appeared to get along with both parents, but that it would be in her best interest to remain with her siblings that are closest in age to her, G.C. and L.C., meaning with Mother.

{¶ 21} The full hearing commenced on November 20, 2020. The first witness was the GAL, who was called by Father. She stated that her “biggest concern” about Mother was that she had not complied with the visitation agreement. Although the GAL recognized that there had been some legitimate reasons why Mother had not sent the children for visitation, such as a quarantine for Covid, she testified that Mother had also demonstrated a “lack of desire to try to make up that parenting time,” which was a concern. The GAL noted that Father and the older children had expressed concerns about Mother abusing alcohol and drugs, and that Mother would leave the children with I.C. when he was with her so “she could go out and drink and party.” According to the GAL, there had been an incident described to her where Mother had been out and wasn't watching L.C., and during that time L.C. got out of the house at 11:00 p.m. by herself; L.C. was two years old at the time. The GAL also stated that an incident had been described to her in which Mother was allegedly drinking while she had the children in the car. The GAL was also concerned that Mother was having M.C. watch the children while Mother went out. The GAL stated that she had no concerns as to Father not following court orders regarding visitation, using alcohol, leaving the older children to watch the younger ones, or any children being unsupervised.

{¶ 22} The GAL stated that she had concerns about Father's communications with some of the people that interact with the children, such as coaches, because she had heard concerns from those people directly rather than through Mother. The GAL stated that those people were concerned about the number of times Father was contacting them, to the point that they felt “a little harassed” or that his communication with them was “inappropriate” or “unnecessary” considering the topic about which they were communicating. The GAL thought that the concern focused primarily on the amount of contact rather than the content of the conversations.

{¶ 23} The GAL stated that two quarantine orders had been placed on the children during the pendency of the matter. The GAL stated that she had checked the parties’ criminal histories, and Mother had a conviction for Medicaid fraud; Mother had been put on probation and had had probation violations for nonpayment for the moneys that were owed. The GAL also testified that Mother was convicted of theft in March 2019. The GAL stated that Father “didn't have any convictions that concerned” her. The GAL was not aware of Father's dating anyone, and she had met Keckler, who moved into Mother's home in June 2019.

{¶ 24} The GAL stated that she had continued her investigation after her initial report, contacting Carol Easter, the children's counselor, Larry Alexander, a prior counselor of the parties, and the child support enforcement agency, due to Mother's “concern” about Father's payment of child support. She described Mother's concerns about Father as: the way that he spoke to the children, his parenting, his abuse of Mother during their marriage, and “money issues,” meaning his nonpayment of support. Mother had reported to the GAL and she and Father saw Larry Alexander for marriage counseling and Mother had reported physical abuse to him, but Alexander reported to the GAL that he only met with the couple once for an initial intake, and his notes from that meeting contained nothing regarding physical abuse.

{¶ 25} The GAL testified that the child support enforcement agency reported that Father was current in his child support, but that he had not paid any spousal support. The GAL stated that I.C. had lived with Mother until they had an altercation that resulted in the police being called, after which Mother kicked I.C. out and “had him sleep in his car.” I.C. had reported to the GAL that, when he lived with Mother, she frequently left the other children in his care while she went out; he also reported that she drank a lot, and he had observed her drinking. According to the GAL, P.C. “echoed the same concerns” that Father and I.C. had voiced to her.

{¶ 26} The GAL stated that G.C. and M.C. had different recollections when she spoke with them, which were “[p]olar opposites.” With respect to G.C., she noted how long it had been since he had seen Father and that G.C. had a “genuine fear” of Father; she did not opine as to whether what G.C. believed he had seen was true. The GAL was concerned that immediate visitation between G.C. and Father “would be harmful” to G.C. The GAL explained that G.C. had not seen Father because he (G.C.) had not wanted to and because Mother had not sent him for visitation; his counselor, Carol Easter, had also recommended that visitation might be detrimental to G.C. The GAL stated that none of the other children had reported such concerns.

{¶ 27} The GAL stated that the parties’ homes were two-and-a-half to three hours apart. She stated that the family members had spent all of their time in the Graham School District in Champaign County until Mother moved with the younger children, except M.C., in February 2019.

{¶ 28} The GAL completed a supplemental report due to new concerns, namely the civil protection order Mother sought against Father in Scioto County and concerns about the quarantine orders. The GAL stated that Father was concerned that Mother and the children had attended G.C.’s football game “in contradiction to the quarantine orders that were granted by the Scioto Department of Health.” The GAL stated that she had contacted Jackson Middle School, where M.C. attended, and Minford Elementary, where G.C. and B.C. attended, and the sporting league in which G.C. had played football. She stated that the middle school reported that M.C. had been absent for five days that were unexcused; Mother subsequently called the school and reported that M.C. “was supposed to be quarantined.” According to the GAL, the football league requested a copy of the quarantine order from Mother, and the league emailed the GAL a copy of the order Mother had sent to them; the GAL testified that the name on the order had been blacked out, and there was a release date of October 4, 2020. The GAL stated that the league had not been aware until after G.C. had played that he had not actually been released from quarantine on the 4th; moreover, the quarantine release order form was for Mother, not G.C. When the GAL asked Mother why she sent G.C. to the game, Mother stated that the Department of Health had advised that if G.C. was asymptomatic, he could play. When the GAL contacted staff at the Department of Health and asked if they would ever advise someone that they could leave home before the release date on a quarantine order, they said “absolutely not under no circumstances” and that they would never have told someone to leave before the release date on the bottom of the paper because the person could still transmit Covid or still exhibit symptoms before the release date.

{¶ 29} The GAL expressed concern about Mother's ability to follow the orders for Father's visitation. The GAL stated that Father had cited numerous occasions in which Mother had given various reasons for not sending the children to visitation. According to the GAL, these including denying visitation because Mother said Father was not current on his child support, but of homecoming or cheerleading practice, because it was recommended by the counselor, and more. According to Father, Mother also declined to allow Father to make up this parenting time.

{¶ 30} The GAL testified that there was no reports of Father refusing to return the children or provide them to Mother for her parenting time. The GAL stated that, from everything that she could see, Father had “made significant attempts to do the majority of driving down there to pick them up and to go there to drop them off.” In other words, Father “seems more willing” to facilitate visitation. The GAL stated that she would frequently hear that Mother had refused to come to the halfway point to meet Father and would tell him to meet her mom “down there in Minford or Portsmouth”; at times, Father would be unsure whether Mother would grant him the visitation or did not think that she would grant him the visitation, but “he would still go and hope he would get the kids that day.”

{¶ 31} The GAL testified that G.C. had expressed no desire to see I.C. or P.C. She stated that the other children appeared to have close relationships with both parents.

{¶ 32} With regard to the parties’ mental health, the GAL stated that Mother was in counseling, and the counselor reported that she was “testing clean” and “taking her medications appropriately.” Mother reported to the counselor that she had “a lot of anxiety and stress with this court case.” The GAL stated that Mother was unemployed and that Father's work schedule was flexible, such that she was not concerned that he could not meet the children's needs.

{¶ 33} On cross-examination, the GAL stated that I.C. had been convicted of domestic violence against Mother and put on probation. She stated that P.C. had sought a protection order in New Jersey against Mother, which was not granted. When asked if she was concerned that M.C. was exposed to Covid while visiting Father, the GAL replied that her biggest concern was not necessarily exposure to Covid, but Mother's exhibited failure to follow through with orders from the Court and from the Department of Health related to Covid.

{¶ 34} The GAL testified that Easter had diagnosed M.C. with oppositional defiant disorder, had diagnosed G.C. with depression and anxiety, and had diagnosed B.C. with severe aggression. The GAL stated that, during Covid, M.C. had voiced that she did not want to engage in counseling with Easter anymore, and the counseling had stopped.

{¶ 35} The GAL stated that, in regard to G.C., Easter had reported to the GAL that G.C. was reporting “things he had actually observed,” and that his “concerns and fears of dad seemed to be legitimate.” Regarding B.C., Easter reported to the GAL that she had been acting out and harming her classmates, but B.C.’s teacher and school had not reported any behaviors like that to the GAL.

{¶ 36} According to the GAL, Easter had reported to the GAL that Father had been calling her and asking for records from the kids, that Father had been making complaints against her to her office, and that he was concerned about her and how she was treating the children; this triggered a review of Easter's files by somebody else in her office. Also as a result, during the GAL's second call with Easter, one of Easter's supervisors was also on the call, based on Father's calling and voicing his concerns.

{¶ 37} On redirect examination, the GAL stated that M.C. had been upset with Mother when M.C. had to move to Minford; the GAL did not receive any reports of M.C. being defiant to anyone but Mother. The GAL stated that, other than Mother and Easter, no one reported that G.C. had anxiety; his coaches had said that he appeared to be happy and did not have any issues. The GAL had asked the coaches if G.C. exhibited different behavior at games Father attended compared with those he did not, and the coaches did not report seeing any difference. The GAL stated that everyone she spoke with about M.C. and B.C. also reported that their behavior seemed to be fine at practices and other activities. The GAL had never observed M.C. or B.C. acting out in an inappropriate way with Mother or Father.

{¶ 38} P.C., age 19, also testified at the hearing. He was a senior at Blair Academy in New Jersey, having been recruited for wrestling as a freshman. He stated that he had not yet signed a letter of intent but had verbally committed to attending Princeton the following year. P.C. stated that his grades were good and that he had placed in three Ironman competitions while at school. He stated that he resided with Father during school breaks and that he did not have a relationship with Mother.

{¶ 39} P.C. testified that his parents had argued occasionally when they were together, but that the altercations were never physical. He stated that he was concerned about how Mother kept G.C. away from the family. P.C. stated that, prior to the parties’ split, he and G.C. had been “really close,” and G.C. had always wanted to play with him when he was home from Blair Academy; P.C. stopped seeing G.C. after the parties dissolved their marriage when his parents were fighting about “money” and “custody.” P.C. stated that after the divorce, when he first came back home, he still visited with Mother; he noticed that she had alcohol in the fridge and had started drinking more, which was unusual because she never drank before or kept alcohol in the fridge. P.C. stated that one time Mother said, “if you babysit over the night, when I get back we can have a drink.” P.C. testified that, the previous summer when he saw Mother, she would frequently say she was going to Walmart at random times and leave him to watch the other kids; she would sometimes leave in the morning and not come back until the following morning.

{¶ 40} P.C. testified that, on one occasion, he and his siblings and some of their friends came to Minford for B.C.’s birthday for two nights, and on the second night, he went to visit a relative on Father's side with Mother's permission. He stated that Mother told him to be home at a certain time the next day, and when he arrived, she was not there. When P.C. asked where she was, he was told that she had not returned from the night before after a trip to Walmart. P.C. testified that I.C. was there watching all of the children, which concerned P.C. because I.C. was “very shy and quiet” and did not talk much. P.C. testified that I.C. has Asperger's, and that P.C. “just did not feel comfortable” with I.C. watching L.C., the youngest sibling, who was a toddler at the time. P.C. testified that I.C. had been “doing a lot better” and was happier since leaving Mother's house and living with Father; I.C. had not been in any trouble, was working and losing weight, and overall had a happier and better lifestyle.

{¶ 41} P.C. testified that he had not communicated with Mother in over a year. He stated that he had texted Mother's mother and expressed concerns about Mother's drinking, “pill abuse,” and “showing signs of * * * bipolar disorder.” Mother became angry and “cuss[ed] [P.C.] out on the phone,” and then shut off his phone. P.C. testified that Father replaced his phone, and he (P.C.) had not provided the new number to Mother because she had not tried to reach out to P.C. and start a relationship unless “she wanted something out of it.” He stated that Mother would text him or email him in the past and try to get him to say something to her “so she could use it against” him or Father.

{¶ 42} P.C. described Mother as always having been “manipulative,” stating that there were “many stories and examples.” He also stated that Mother had made unfulfilled promises to him “multiple times.” For example, he stated that in the summer of 2019, Mother said she would get him a car, but only for use at her house; he could not take it to Father's. At the time, P.C. was living with Father because there were wrestling opportunities at a higher level near Father.

{¶ 43} P.C. testified that he did not discuss Mother with his siblings, stating it was “sore subject” because of G.C. He stated that, before the divorce, Father and G.C. had been “really close,” but afterward G.S. would not talk to Father or even to P.C. and I.C. P.C. stated that, in the hallway before the hearing, he tried to go say hi to G.C., but Mother had “grabbed” G.C. and not let him talk. P.C. also testified that, two weeks earlier, he had gone to one of G.C.’s football games with Father and I.C., and they had tried to talk with G.C. afterward, but Mother and her family had “blocked” G.C. and kind of “formed a wall” so G.C. could not talk with them.

{¶ 44} P.C. stated that wrestling was a priority for M.C., but Mother did not prioritize the sport for M.C. According to P.C., in the previous year, M.C. had not wrestled when she was living at Mother's, and “[i]t wasn't until [M.C.] really started complaining” that Mother allowed her to wrestle again.

{¶ 45} P.C. stated that it was “really tough” not being able to see G.C., and that it was hard to talk with M.C. P.C. described times when he thought M.C. had contacted him through Snapchat or Instagram, only to realize when he asked her about the conversation later that it had been Mother using M.C.’s account. P.C. felt that when his siblings were at Mother's, he did not know if he could talk with them because he feared it was Mother pretending to be one of his siblings.

{¶ 46} With respect to Mother's interaction with his school, P.C. stated that at the beginning of his junior year, after he and Mother had had a big argument, Mother had sent screenshots of the argument to his school and had told the school that he was a “bad kid” and should not be allowed to be there. Since that time, the school communicated only with Father and not Mother.

{¶ 47} P.C. testified that his Father and his coach had attempted to get a restraining order against Mother because she was “contacting the school too much” and “trying to get [him] in trouble through the school.” He had been afraid of Mother's telling his school to kick him out because of a fight between Mother and P.C. P.C. stated that the petition was dismissed, but “the Judge had [them] come to an agreement” that Mother would not contact P.C.’s school and the school would not contact her. He stated that if Mother wants to fix their relationship, she should be sincere about it and approach it in a way that did not involve other people or “trying to get at” Father.

{¶ 48} I.C., age 21, testified that he lived with his aunt when his parents ended their marriage his senior year; he then moved in with Mother in March 2019. He stated that his parents often argued, and that he had observed Mother throw a glass of water at Father and also hit him. He stated that he never observed Father hit Mother. I.C. stated that he had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.

{¶ 49} I.C. testified that, when he was living with Mother, she often went out at night and did not come back until the morning. He sometimes knew she would be out overnight when she left, and sometimes he did not; he sometimes had to miss school because Mother was not back. I.C. testified that he was asked to babysit his younger siblings “[a]lmost every day,” and Mother never asked him if he minded her being out overnight. He stated that in the fourth quarter of his senior year of high school, Mother would pick him up at his aunt's on Thursdays, and he “usually did not go back to school until Tuesday”; Mother had to go to the principal's office because I.C. was in jeopardy of not graduating. I.C. stated that he missed around 81 hours of school during that fourth quarter alone.

{¶ 50} I.C. stated that Mother was not employed. He also testified that, prior to the parties’ split, it was uncommon for there to be alcohol in the home, but Mother kept alcohol in the home after the divorce. Mother offered him alcohol at his graduation party and sometimes thereafter. When asked if the offers of alcohol were in exchange for something, I.C. responded that Mother would ask him to tell Father something so “maybe [she] could get some more money,” or Mother would say that Father “can just not really know what is going on here.” Mother offered I.C. alcohol to cover things up. Mother would also tell I.C. to say something to Father under a threat that I.C. would not be able to see his girlfriend if he did not do it.

{¶ 51} I.C. testified that Mother and M.C. “fought all the time” since the dissolution and M.C. “always took [Father's] side.” I.C. stated that he was worried for his siblings if they stayed with Mother because there were “not any rules there.” According to I.C., Mother didn't care what they did, did not focus on the children, and was willing to let other people watch them “while she was just gone.” I.C. testified that, during the summer he was living with her, he had frequently observed Mother driving with the children in the car while she was intoxicated, including swerving and near wrecks. I.C. stated this had happened at least five times; sometimes they would be “halfway off the road,” and I.C. would yell at Mother to “try to get her back onto the road.”

{¶ 52} I.C. also expressed concern about his siblings’ education, because M.C. told him she had been missing school. I.C. had also heard Mother tell the children that Father had beaten her, caused miscarriages, and cheated. I.C. stated that he had not observed Father speak ill of Mother, and Father even stopped people from saying anything bad about Mother. I.C. testified that, since living with Father, he had “lost 50 pounds, was working, and was “happier in life.”

{¶ 53} On cross-examination, I.C. acknowledged that he had been charged with assault after Mother tried to take his phone from him and he pushed her away. He stated that he took diversion and pled no contest, and he had not spoken to Mother since the incident.

{¶ 54} Father testified when the hearing resumed on January 27, 2021. Father testified that he and Mother continued to reside together after their dissolution until February 2019; in February, he attended a competition of P.C.’s in New Jersey, and when he returned, Mother “had just completely moved out and everything was gone.” It took Father “a few weeks” to learn Mother's new location.

{¶ 55} Father testified that in September 2019, M.C. was living with him, going to Graham Elementary, and doing “fantastic.” Father stated that he met Mother on Friday, September 8, 2019, and dropped M.C. off on his way to another of P.C.’s wrestling tournaments. While en route to New Jersey, he received a text message from Mother stating that M.C. was “not coming back”; Mother had enrolled M.C. in a new school in Minford, which neither Father nor M.C. had known was going to happen. Father also had not been consulted about Mother's move to Minford.

{¶ 56} Father stated that, by December 2019, there was “a pattern” of denial of his parenting time by Mother, and he did not get all of his parenting time around Christmas. P.C. had a wrestling tournament in Cleveland on January 24, 2020, and P.C. had not gotten to see his siblings during Christmas break because Mother had kept them from Father, so Father planned to take the children with him to Cleveland for the tournament and celebrate Christmas together afterward. Father testified that this had been his scheduled weekend with the children, but Mother did not allow him to have B.C. and L.C., so the “Christmas make up” time also didn't happen.

{¶ 57} Similarly, Father stated that Easter 2020 was his scheduled holiday, and he drove two and a half hours to Portsmouth to pick up the children, but Mother failed to appear with them, and she did not respond to his texts and phone calls. Father testified that he had expected to have the children from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. that day, and had prepared dinner and Easter baskets. After receiving no response from Mother and sitting at the police station “for a significant amount of time just for hopes” that Mother would show up, Father went home. The children did not get the Easter baskets until two weeks later.

{¶ 58} Father identified a series of text messages between him and Mother in January 2019, in which Mother refused to provide information about L.C.’s medical care during Father's scheduled weekend (Exhibit E). The texts reflected that Father had asked Mother to let him know what time L.C.’s appointment was the next day and with whom, so he could come. Mother responded, “It's my day and since you can't ever act like an adult that won't happen.”

{¶ 59} Father testified that in May 2019, Mother texted him and stated that if he paid her more money, she would allow him to have full custody of M.C. This text exchange was submitted as Exhibit F.

{¶ 60} Father stated that he did not have parenting time with B.C. and L.C. on the weekend of July 20, 2019, and that he see them again until October 17, 2019; during that time period, Mother repeatedly told Father that he wouldn't get the children again unless he gave her more money. Exhibit G, text messages between Father and Mother from August 2019, reflected such an exchange, in which he asked about getting the children for the weekend and Mother repeatedly conditioned seeing the children on his giving her more money (beyond the existing spousal and child support).

{¶ 61} Father identified an email exchange with Mother from September 2019 (Exhibit H), in which Mother said she would not allow Father to see any of the children due to “[his] behavior.” Father stated that Mother “fictitiously claim[ed]” that he had behavioral issues. He stated that this particular exchange occurred after he had attended a concert in which B.C. had participated; B.C. had come up to Father and given him a hug after the concert, and Father “guess[ed] that upset [Mother]. And then * * * that was her argument the following weekend why [he] couldn't have the kids.”

{¶ 62} Father stated that while M.C. was in his care, even though he was not receiving visitation, he still required M.C. to visit Mother. He stated that he felt it was important for all the kids to have relationships with both parents.

{¶ 63} Father identified M.C.’s sixth grade report card of nine weeks when she resided with him (Exhibit I); the report card reflected that she was on the “A Honor Roll.” Father also testified that he bought M.C. a phone, which Mother subsequently took away from her and refused to return to M.C. or Father. In an email exchange related to the phone on September 11, 2019 (Exhibit J), there was “continued discussion about not being able to have the children.” Father stated in the email that he had not had the children for visitation since July 21, 2019. Father testified that he did not see the children again until counsels’ meeting with the court on October 17, 2019,¹ including for their birthdays. He stated that the denial of visitation discussed in Exhibit K (October 7, 2019) was because, in Mother's view, he did not pay enough of the children's extracurricular expenses. In the exchange, Father asked Mother to provide receipts for anything for which she believed he owed her; in response, Mother sent a list of expenses related to the children. Father again requested receipts so they could discuss costs related to the kids.

{¶ 64} Father testified that the children's attendance at school had been “a major issue.” He identified school records for M.C., B.C., L.C., and G.C. from Minford (Exhibit L), which showed 16 absences for G.C. between September 2019 and March 2020 and 21 absences for B.C. From November 2019 to March 2020, which he pointed out was pre-Covid and Covid shutdowns, M.C. had 8 absences.

{¶ 65} Father testified that November 8, 2019, was his scheduled visitation, but he did not see the children; Mother indicated that L.C. was sick, and when Father pointed out that he could take care of a sick child, Mother said no. When Father asked to see the other children or for make-up visitation time, Mother refused. In an email exchange about that particular visitation (Exhibit M), Mother stated: “We'll just switch weekends and you can get them next weekend,” and that L.C. “doesn't want to come this weekend.”

{¶ 66} Father stated that Keckler had moved in with Mother in June 2019, but Father did not become aware of that fact until August 2019. Father also testified that in November 2019, he and Mother had agreed on the December holiday schedule, which was memorialized in an exchange marked as Exhibit P. Father testified that he had lots of vacation days at JP Morgan Chase in December. According to Father's email, they had agreed that he would have the children on November 29 to December 1; December 20 to December 24; December 27 to December 30, and January 10 to January 12, as well as the “standard every other weekend.” Mother responded by email, “That schedule looks good to me.” Father stated that, subsequently, the “whole month of December didn't happen.” Mother claimed that she had received a blank envelope when Father mailed her the spousal support, so she stated she “couldn't afford” to bring the children to him and he did not get them.

{¶ 67} Father testified that “everything went downhill” with visitation after August 2020, even though It hadn't been good before that time either. Father stated that, starting in October, at least one of the children did not attend visitation with him “around 79 percent of the time,” and he never saw G.C.

{¶ 68} Father testified that in August 2020, Mother refused to allow visitation because she wanted Father to get a Covid test; she said she had “heard rumors” that he might have been around someone who had Covid, but Father denied that this had been the case. Father drove to Portsmouth on August 8, 2020, for a scheduled visitation, but Mother failed to bring the children to the police station for the exchange. According to Father, the police then escorted him to Mother's home, where they found M.C. babysitting the other children; Mother and Keckler were not home. Father produced an exchange between him and Mother in which Mother stated that the children would not be going to Father's house unless he get a negative test (Exhibit T). Father testified that he encouraged Mother speak to her lawyer because there was “nothing prohibiting [him] having the children” and no requirement of a Covid test. Father stated that Mother did not provide make-up visitation on this occasion.

{¶ 69} Father stated that “a number of times,” if the children stayed with Mother during his scheduled visitations, she would purchase items for them. For example, he stated that in April 2020, G.C. indicated that he wanted to visit Father, and Mother told him, “wouldn't you rather come with us and we'll do X, Y, and Z. Like in July, when I didn't get him, she took [G.C.] to the arcade. That's been a constant theme.”

{¶ 70} Father stated that, in August 2020, M.C. moved to Jackson Middle School, which was her third school in one year and was 33 miles from Mother's home. Father stated that M.C. began staying with her best friend, the friend's single father, and her 17-year old brother five or six nights a week. He stated that, since school started on August 18, 2020, M.C. had missed 35 days; 18 days were listed as Covid days, and 17 days as non-Covid, and six were listed as excused absences.

{¶ 71} Father stated that on September 18, 2020, G.C. and B.C. had a football game, and he drove down on Friday to pick up the children for his scheduled visitation. He stated that Mother only brought M.C. to the exchange, and that he and M.C. rented a hotel room to attend the football game the following day. He stated that the game began at 11:00 a.m. and ended at 1:00 p.m. Father stated that he texted Mother after the game and asked to talk with the children or have his visitation, because it was his weekend and he had “already lost half of the weekend”; Mother responded that they could only do pickups at the police station, which was a 30-minute drive from the game. According to Father, he went to the police station and waited for Mother, but she texted him at 3:30 stating that “the kids don't want to come over.” At another point in the exchange, Mother stated that B.C. wanted to go to a friend's party; Father asked Mother to send him the information about the party and offered to take B.C., at which point Mother said that B.C. had already been picked up. Father identified Exhibit W as a copy of the parties’ exchange on September 17 and 18, 2020, as well as a photo taken by him of Keckler and B.C. at the game. Father stated that when B.C. saw him at the game, she began to walk toward him, but Keckler “jerked” her and “pull[ed] her in the opposite direction.” He testified that he was deprived not only of visitation with his children, but of a conversation with them.

{¶ 72} Father stated that the children were quarantined from September 29 to October 8, 2020, and as a result, he did not have visitation during his scheduled time. Yet Father stated that he received a text message from M.C. on October 3, 2020, stating that she was horseback riding at her grandpa's. Father testified that G.C. also had a football game on October 4, 2020, which was also M.C.’s birthday and Father's scheduled weekend for visitation. Father stated that he went to the game, and G.C. was playing, B.C. was cheerleading, and L.C. was present with Mother and Keckler, even though the children were still under a quarantine order. When he asked Mother for a make-up visitation for this weekend, and she replied that the court could decide about that. The individual quarantine orders for L.C., B.C., and G.C., dated September 30, 2020, with a release date of October 8, 2020, were presented as an exhibit, and they listed Mother as the “responsible parent.”

{¶ 73} Father stated that on the weekend of October 17, 2020, B.C. and G.C. had a homecoming event in Minford at 6:00. Father asked Mother if he could pick up the children after the event, and she said no, again citing their agreement that exchanges occur at the sheriff's station at 6 p.m. Father responded, “so B.C. will have to miss this? And she said, those are the rules. Period.” Father stated that he went to the sheriff's station, but Mother failed to appear. Father stated that two hours into his drive home, B.C. texted him asking why Father had not come to his homecoming, “with a crybaby face emoji.” Father stated that he “didn't discuss the situation” but told B.C. that he was sure she had looked beautiful. He also offered that she could still come to his house. Mother then offered to meet him at the sheriff's station, and Father drove two hours back to the station, getting the children around 8:30 or 9 p.m. on Friday, but having missed homecoming. Mother had also told Father that G.C. did not want him at homecoming. The texts of this conversation were admitted as Exhibit Y.

{¶ 74} Father presented messages between him and Mother on the Thursday before the homecoming in which he requested to speak to the children, noting that he hadn't talked with them all week (Exhibit Z). Mother responded, “well, you get them tomorrow. So your time to talk to them is tomorrow when you pick them up.”

{¶ 75} Father stated that he checked his children's attendance and absences at school “almost daily.” In this regard, he testified that on November 5, 2020, M.C. went to a pumpkin patch and was absent from school, and Mother had called in saying she had ringworm. Father also noted that he had attended G.C.’s football game that evening, and M.C. was at the football game even though she had been absent from school.

{¶ 76} When asked about his concerns about Mother's parenting, Father stated that all of the children had reported to the GAL that Mother drinks and drives, which was Father's biggest concern. Father stated that he was also concerned about “continued alienation.”

{¶ 77} Father stated that he believed that he was the more stable parent. He had spoken to his boss, and Father was permitted to work from home. He described himself was “very structured and very stable.” He stated that when M.C. resided with him, she had been “very focused” and had been “on a path to go to Wyoming Seminary, * * * a boarding school in Pennsylvania.” But after M.C. moved, her attendance at school had been very poor. Father also testified that he would encourage the children's relationship with Mother, which would put the children in “the best situation.” Father stated that children's academic futures and goals would be better served living with him, because he provided a more structured life and was “driven”, which the children “feed off of.”

{¶ 78} Father testified that he earned $104,000 per year, plus a bonus of approximately $6,000, and that he provided insurance for the children. Father stated that he had looked into preschool for L.C., and that his schedule was flexible enough to see to her care. He stated that he would be able to get the children on and off the school bus, and that I.C. would also help him if necessary.

{¶ 79} On cross-examination, Father stated that he paid $1,500 per month in child support and $100 per month in spousal support.

{¶ 80} Father stated that after the last court date, I.C. had reached out to Mother because he wanted to talk to G.C. “Essentially, when I was unable to have a relationship with [G.C.], [I.C.] was like the father.” But Father stated that Mother refused to allow I.C. to have contact with G.C.

{¶ 81} On redirect examination, Father stated that he had expected Mother to remain in the area after their dissolution, because they “were going to continue to work on the marriage”; he also stated that they had talked about her returning to work and “develop[ing] her career again.” Father stated that Mother's move to Minford was a “[c]omplete surprise to everyone.”

{¶ 82} Tara Crabtree, Mother's sister, testified that Mother was a good mom who met her children's needs. She stated that the children in the custody proceedings all get along with Mother. Vickie Shoemaker, Mother's mother, testified that Mother “provides well” for the children and makes sure they are able to participate in all sporting events that they want to do.

{¶ 83} Keckler testified that he and Mother were engaged and lived together. He met Mother in June 2019 and moved into her home in September 2019. Keckler testified that “from the time [Mother] wakes up to the time she goes to bed she's doing everything for the kids.” He testified that he had observed Father calling Mother “vulgar, disgusting names” in front of the children at G.C.’s football scrimmage in August 2019. He stated that Father would stand next to him, shoulder to shoulder, and start “throwing elbows” at him. Keckler stated that he called the sheriff's office, and a deputy responded and spoke to Father. Keckler stated that Father later returned to his side of the field and “stiff-armed” Keckler in the chest, shoving him back. According to Keckler, Keckler told Father that he was going to call the sheriff's office again, and then Father “scurried off out of the parking lot.” Keckler stated that at M.C.’s last wrestling meet two weeks earlier, Father had sat behind Keckler and Mother and had whispered accusations about Mother regarding things that Keckler knew weren't going on, but that was Father's “MO.” On cross-examination, Keckler stated that he was aware of Mother's having refused visitation more than once.

{¶ 84} Carol Easter, a licensed social worker and a licensed professional clinical counselor at Shawnee Family Health Center in Scioto County, testified that she counsels G.C. and B.C.; she had also previously counseled M.C., but had not seen M.C. since February 2020. Easter stated that she sees G.C. and B.C. every other week, with exceptions due to Covid. On September 22, 2020, Easter wrote a letter to Mother's attorney because G.C. had talked with her “about his anxiety with [Father] coming to his games.” Easter testified as follows:

The first incident is when [Father] asked [M.C.] to get [G.C.] to come down to the Dairy Bar. And he was going to take [G.C.] and his other siblings, possibly. I don't know where he was going to take them, but maybe back to Urbana. And [M.C.] decided to go ahead and tell her mom before. She decided not to follow through with the plan and then she told her mom. And, of course, the kids didn't go then. But [G.C.] was very frightened by that incident. Because he said that if he got down there, he wouldn't know what to do. He would probably try to run. * * * He was just greatly afraid his father was going to try something again. * * *

The second was at the peewee football game on September 12. The father showed up at the game. [G.C.] said he panicked and ran to the other side of the field. He said to me that he knows I don't want him to come to my games. He doesn't trust his dad and feels he's out to cause trouble for him or his mother.

The third occasion was on September 19 at another game. And [G.C.] said he almost did not show up because he learned before he even got there that his dad was there.

{¶ 85} Easter stated that she had taught G.C. coping skills and that he “just focused in on his game and he didn't seem to be that concerned. So the coping skills were working as far as his dad being able to come to the game.” Easter stated that she understood, through G.C., that Father would try to get G.C.’s attention after games, and G.C. “would just keep moving towards the car or his mom or wherever he needed to go. * * * But I think he always has it in the back of his mind that somehow his dad is going to try to take him.” Easter stated that, until some things could be resolved between G.C. and Father, she did not think it was in G.C.’s best interest to have visitation with Father.

{¶ 86} According to Easter, B.C. had told her all along that she loved Father and she wanted to be with him, until Easter “started hearing a different message from [B.C.] in, maybe October or November or December.” At that point, B.C. told Easter that she did not want to go to Father's a particular weekend because she wanted to go to a birthday party and she had cheerleading. Easter stated that B.C. mentioned that Father goes to M.C.’s wrestling and G.C.’s sporting events, but he had never seen her cheer. Easter stated that she suggested that B.C. ask Father to come to the game or spend the day with her on Sunday, but B.C. reported that Father said no because he wanted her to come home with him, which was his right as a parent. Easter also testified that B.C. had told her that Father sent B.C. a photo of himself with L.C. “and said, this is my best buddy. And [B.C.] said that that really hurt her feelings.” She stated that B.C. no longer wanted to visit Father.

{¶ 87} Easter stated that none of the children had ever reported to her that Father had hurt them. She described G.C. as being frightened by Father because he “yelled and screamed” and because he had seen Father hit Mother many times, causing bruises and a broken arm. According to Easter, B.C. had also reported being afraid of Father because he had hurt Mother. Easter testified that M.C. initially told her that she had seen Father hurt Mother, but she had later denied saying that, calling Easter a “liar.” Easter planned to continue counseling G.C. and B.C.

{¶ 88} On cross-examination, Easter acknowledged that M.C. had told her a number of times that she was happy to go to Father's home. Easter stated that she had counseled the children one-on-one except when she performed “crisis intervention” between M.C. and Mother. She stated that she had diagnosed M.C. with oppositional defiant disorder at the time, and she acknowledged that it would not be unusual for a 14-year-old girl to be upset under the circumstances of an unexpected move. She stated that M.C. had been so “openly defiant” during the session that other people in her office had to come knock on her office door because M.C. was screaming verbal abuse at her mother.

{¶ 89} Easter stated that Father had used “unkind words” in telling Easter that Mother had been having affairs outside of the marriage. She stated that the children had never indicated to her that Father spoke ill of Mother. Easter stated that G.C. had told her how he perceived his dad at the ball games; at one ball game, Father was there with his older two sons and they were yelling at G.C. to come over to them. It was frightening to G.C. that they were all yelling, and he had feared that if he went over to them, “they would all grab him.” She acknowledged that Father's attendance at G.C.’s games was “supportive” to a point, but when he became “loud and abrasive” at the games then it was not helpful. Easter stated that she had not spoken to any of the coaches to verify whether Father's behavior was as described by G.C.

{¶ 90} Finally, Mother testified at the hearing. Mother testified that, at the time of the dissolution, Father did not fight for custody of the children because she agreed to a lower amount of child support. She also stated that, pursuant to the dissolution, she was supposed to stay in the house and Father was not; there had been some calls to the police when she was trying to get him to leave. In the end, Mother ended up leaving. She stated that Father had been aware that she was leaving for a while and knew that she had a house and had been packing. Mother stated that G.C., B.C. L.C. and M.C. all initially came with her, but she brought M.C. back to Father go to school, because M.C. wanted to finish that year at Graham. According to Mother, while M.C. was with Father, “he was filling her head with all kinds of stuff and our relationship got terrible.”

{¶ 91} Mother stated that Father's visitation with the children had “always been at his convenience” and that she granted Father make-up visitations. With respect to the Easter visitation about which Father had testified, Mother testified that they had had an agreement that Father had the children the full week before Easter, because they were out of school for Covid, and then she got them on Easter. Mother also testified that she had let Father have M.C. on several of her weekends.

{¶ 92} Regarding M.C.’s school attendance, Mother stated that M.C. had been quarantined three times and that her absences “should be Covid related.” Mother stated that the children did not have any unexcused absences from school. She also stated that Father was “all about sports” and didn't care about anything else. Mother stated that Father “got the stimulus checks for the kids” and had not done anything for the kids, including paying for half of their activities. Mother acknowledged that she had not paid for half of P.C.’s tuition because she was not working and could not afford to pay. She also asserted that Father was not paying the right amount of child support.

{¶ 93} Mother testified that Father harassed her at G.C.’s sporting events and “won't leave us alone,” which G.C. saw and which contributed to G.C.’s not wanting to have a relationship with him. She stated that M.C. had also “pointed out how embarrassing [Father] is” and that M.C. hardly ever wanted to visit Father. In response to a question by the court, Mother stated that M.C. had visited Father twice in the previous three months.

{¶ 94} On cross-examination, Mother did not directly answer a question about whether she had allowed make-up parenting time, saying that she did not keep track of dates and that Father was “very manipulative.” She also stated that M.C. had quit counseling after Father requested the records; Mother asked that the records be “sealed” because she did not think that counseling would work if M.C. was afraid her parents would see the records.

{¶ 95} Mother testified that she had “never said anything” to discourage the children from visiting Father. She said she had talked with G.C. several times about visiting, but he “panicked” and did not want to go. She testified that she had also tried to persuade B.C. to go on a recent weekend, even taking her to the sheriff's station, but B.C. ultimately refused to go. Mother acknowledged that none of the children had reported physical abuse by Father, but she stated that the children had all reported seeing his physical abuse of her. Mother denied that she had ever promised to buy the children] anything as a reward for not visiting Father.

{¶ 96} When asked about her lack of contact with P.C., Mother testified that on August 15, 2019, Father told her via email that if she did not move back in the house, he would make their children hate her. Then on August 20, P.C. sent her messages calling her a whore and drug addict and saying that she had herpes on her face. Mother stated that she had proof that everything was fine until then. However, Mother submitted no exhibits documenting these exchanges. Mother denied any drug use and said that P.C.’s concerns about that were caused by Father's influence; she said she had taken and passed two drug tests, and there had never been any proof of drug usage.

{¶ 97} Mother stated that Keckler had moved in with her in September or October 2019, after they had met in June 2019. Mother stated that she was able to work and had previously been employed as a nurse. She stated that she had been fired from one of her jobs because Father had harassed the person for whom she had worked. Mother stated that her nursing license had “a hold on it” until she paid off some money, which was apparently related to a conviction for Medicaid fraud.

{¶ 98} With respect to taking the children to the football game while they were under quarantine orders, Mother stated that there had been “a total misunderstanding” and she had made a mistake.

{¶ 99} After the hearing, on March 26, 2021, the GAL filed a supplemental report. On March 30, 2021, the court filed an entry informing the parties that if they wished to reexamine the GAL, they should notify the court in writing within seven days; otherwise, the court would decide the matter based on the testimony that had already been presented. Neither party sought further examination of the GAL.

{¶ 100} On May 4, 2021, Father filed another motion to show cause, alleging that Mother continued to deny him parenting time.

{¶ 101} The trial court issued its decision on May 27, 2021, based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing and the GAL's reports and recommendations. After discussing the legal standard for awarding a change of custody, the trial court noted that Father sought full custody of the children primarily because Mother had denied him parenting time on multiple occasions in the previous year and, with respect to one child, for an extended period of time. However, the court found that Father had “exhibited aggressive behavior” at sporting events that had caused G.C. to be fearful, such that the counselor, Carol Easter, thought that G.C.’s having parenting time with Father at this point “would be detrimental to him,” and that Father “must first ‘tone down’ his behavior so as to alleviate” some of G.C.’s fears and begin counseling with G.C. before any parenting time should resume.

{¶ 102} With respect to the testimony about Covid and quarantine rules causing missed parenting time, the court found that the children had been quarantined several times, and Father had missed parenting time because of this. The court noted that there had been a lot of confusion about Covid rules that had made it difficult for anyone to figure out. It stated: “There was again much testimony about what actually were the local health department's rules about quarantining, sheltering in place, etc. and whether Mother * * * followed them appropriately. The court does not believe anyone, not local health departments, the CDC, or any other medical or governmental agency knew or could figure out what the rules were in the mi[d]st of the pandemic.” As such, the court found that it could not determine whether Mother had or had not followed the rules correctly, and would not “blame her if she did not.”

{¶ 103} The trial court concluded that, although denial of parenting time was a serious issue, in this case for the reasons previously stated, it did not believe that Mother was to blame for most of the missed parenting time. The court also noted that the testimony showed that the children were all doing well personally and in school, despite the animosity between their parents. For these reasons, the court found that there had not been “a significant change of circumstances” that warranted a change in custody, and that a change in custody was not in the children's best interest. The court denied Father's motion for a change of custody and ordered that Mother remain the legal custodian of the children.

{¶ 104} In regard to parenting time, the court ordered that Father's parenting time would continue as previously ordered except with G.C. In accordance with Easter's advice, the court ordered that Father have no parenting time with G.C. until they could begin to “repair their relationship by engaging in counseling”; when the counselor believed parenting time could resume, then Father's parenting time with G.C. would be as it was with the other children.

{¶ 105} Father appeals from the trial court's judgment, raising two assignments of error. His first assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

{¶ 106} Father asserts that the trial court's finding that there had not been a change in circumstances was not supported by the evidence. Based on the significant facts that Mother moved from Urbana to Minford, which was more than two hours away from Father, without notifying the court of her intent to do so, changed the children's schools during the school year, and interfered with his parenting time, Father asserts that the trial court should have found a change of circumstances.

{¶ 107} Father asserts that the court “ignored” Mother's alienation of the children since moving away from Urbana and her “outward refusal” to allow Father his parenting time “almost from the moment she moved.” Father argues that any harm caused by a change of custody to Father would be outweighed by the benefit of having a parent who would encourage the children to have a positive relationship with the other parent and not use the children as weapons. He argues that a change of custody would also return the children to the school community and friends they had prior to Mother's unilateral decision to move.

{¶ 108} Father contends that Mother intends to “strip [Father] from the children's lives with her fabricated lies and literal brainwashing.” He also asserts that the court ignored all the reasons to question Mother's credibility and abused its discretion in finding that she was more credible than Father. Specifically, he notes that she had been convicted of Medicaid fraud, had not made any payments relating to that conviction, and had a separate theft conviction in 2019. He also points out that the counselor could not confirm Mother's alleged reports of abuse during their session, and that P.C. testified about Mother's pretending to be M.C. on social media.

{¶ 109} Citing R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j), Father asserts that the best interest of the children necessitated a change in custody from Mother to Father.

{¶ 110} Mother responds that she was supposed to remain in the parties’ home, citing the dissolution decree, but was “forced to relocate”; we note, however, that the decree does not establish that Mother was to remain at the marital residence. Mother also asserts that the relocation did not harm the children, and that Father's own “inappropriate behaviors” affected his visitation and would have done so regardless of how close together the parties lived.

{¶ 111} Mother contends that the trial court correctly determined that a modification of custody would not be in the children's best interest because the children all reported having seen Father physically abuse Mother. She also asserts that Father tried to ruin her relationship with M.C. while M.C. was living with him. Mother contends that the testimony of the GAL and Carol Easter demonstrated “the multitude of ways” that Father had “destroyed” his relationship with G.C.; Easter's testimony also demonstrated that Father had hurt B.C.’s feelings by texting her a photo of himself with L.C.

{¶ 112} According to Mother, a point-by-point analysis of the best interest factors was not required because the trial court found no change of circumstances, but nonetheless the court correctly concluded that the children's best interest would not be served by a change in custody. Mother asserts that she was the parent most likely to facilitate parenting time, citing Keckler's testimony about Father's “unconscionable behavior” at sporting events, Easter's testimony about physical abuse, use of “unkind words,” and “heckling” at games, and Mother's testimony about harassment, physical abuse, and threats regarding her relationship with the children.

{¶ 113} In reply, Father points out that the dissolution did not indicate that Mother was designated to stay in the marital residence, except that it listed her address at the marital residence in the caption. Moreover, it was undisputed that the parties continued to live there together after the dissolution for several months until Mother decided to move without any notice to Father. According to Father, Mother's argument ignores the fact that, immediately upon her move to Minford, and before Father had an opportunity to do anything that could have possibly affected his children's desire to see him, she stopped allowing G.C. to see him.

{¶ 114} Father argues that the final GAL report filed on March 26, 2021, was “outside the record” and should not have been considered by the trial court in making its decision. He contends that, as the children's attitudes changed, the court failed to recognize and find that parental alienation was taking place, notwithstanding the testimony from the older siblings and the GAL that the children previously had great relationships with Father and their older brothers. He argues that the children's alleged sudden fear of Father was not supported by the evidence, except the evidence that Mother and her family did everything they could when Father or the older sons came to one of G.C.’s games “to act as a physical barrier,” keep them separated, and to “display * * * hatred” for Father.

{¶ 115} R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) states:

The court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child's residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. In applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential parent designated by the prior decree or the prior shared parenting decree, unless a modification is in the best interest of the child and one of the following applies:

(i) The residential parent agrees to a change in the residential parent or both parents under a shared parenting decree agree to a change in the designation of residential parent.

(ii) The child, with the consent of the residential parent or of both parents under a shared parenting decree, has been integrated into the family of the person seeking to become the residential parent.

(iii) The harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.

{¶ 116} As noted above, the trial court's entry stated that it did “not find there is a significant change of circumstances.” (Emphasis added.) However, this Court had held that the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion in Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997) “made it clear that interpreting the statutory language as requiring a substantial change [in circumstances] imposes ‘a higher burden of proof than required by statute.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Gartin v. Gartin, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2011-CA-74, 2012-Ohio-2232, 2012 WL 1810184, ¶ 9, quoting Davis at 417-418, 674 N.E.2d 1159. We noted that, while the Supreme Court “did not establish (and has not established since) a definitive interpretation of the change-in-circumstance language, it did say that ‘there must be a change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody, and the change must be a change of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change.’ ” Id., quoting Davis at 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159. We stated that “the nature of the change is not dispositive.” Id. at ¶ 10. Moreover, in determining whether a change in circumstances has occurred so as to warrant a change in custody, a trial judge, as the trier of fact, must be given wide latitude to consider all issues which support such a change. Id. at ¶ 10, quoting Davis at 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159.

{¶ 117} Having reviewed all of the evidence, we conclude that indisputably a change of circumstances had been established. The trial court erred by requiring a higher burden of proof in contravention of Gartin. The children's relocation two-and-a-half hours away from Father, M.C.’s subsequent attendance at a school 33 miles from Mother, the demise of G.C.’s relationships with Father, I.C., and P.C. while in Mother's care, the children's new mental health diagnoses while in Mother's care, and Mother's clear interference with Father's parenting time (as discussed in Father's second assignment of error), taken together, clearly constituted a change in circumstances. These changes were not inconsequential.

{¶ 118} Having found that the trial court erred in not finding a change of circumstances (not merely a slight or inconsequential change, but rather a change of substance), it must yet be determined whether it is in the best interest of the children to modify the prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). That statute provides:

In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to this section, whether on an original decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children or a modification of a decree allocating those rights and responsibilities, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

(a) The wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's care;

(b) If the court has interviewed the child in chambers pursuant to division (B) of this section regarding the child's wishes and concerns as to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities concerning the child, the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court;

(c) The child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest;

(d) The child's adjustment to the child's home, school, and community;

(e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation;

(f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights;

(g) Whether either parent has failed to make all child support payments, including all arrearages, that are required of that parent pursuant to a child support order under which that parent is an obligor;

(h) Whether either parent or any member of the household of either parent previously 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; whether either parent, in a case in which a child has been adjudicated an abused child or a neglected child, previously has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive or neglectful act that is the basis of an adjudication; whether either parent or any member of the household of either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code or a sexually oriented offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the current proceeding; whether either parent or any member of the household of either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the current proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense; and whether there is reason to believe that either parent has acted in a manner resulting in a child being an abused child or a neglected child;

(i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied the other parent's right to parenting time in accordance with an order of the court;

(j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside this state.

{¶ 119} Based upon the demonstrated change of circumstances, Father's first assignment of error is sustained. As such, the trial court will be required to conduct further analysis pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) as to whether or not it is in the children's best interest to modify the prior allocation of parental rights.

{¶ 120} Father's second assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND APPELLEE IN CONTEMPT WHEN SHE CONTINUOUSLY FAILED TO ALLOW APPELLANT TO HAVE THE CHILDREN FOR HIS PARENTING TIME.

{¶ 121} Father asserts that the trial court “erroneously viewed the evidence, putting its own spin on the facts, while ignoring chunks of evidence” that were contrary to the court's decision, in finding that Mother was not in contempt for interfering with Father's parenting time. Father asserts that the court “ignored all the testimony” about missed parenting time that pre-dated any Covid orders. He contends that he proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother “outright” disobeyed a valid parenting time order from February 2019 through the final hearing in the case, including but not limited to a period when there were concerns about Covid. According to Father, the court abused its discretion.

{¶ 122} Father cites Lindsey v. Lindsey, 2021-Ohio-2060, 174 N.E.3d 458 (11th Dist.), in which the mother was held in contempt for denying visitation due to Covid concerns. The case stated:

The Ohio Department of Health's March 22, 2020 stay-at-home order included various exceptions for essential activities and travel. One exception to the stay-at-home order was traveling for transport of children pursuant to a custody order. If travel for such a purpose is essential, it would reasonably follow that visitation and custody transfers are equally essential. * * * Thus, even though mother asserted her decision to withhold father's physical visitation rights was due to a legitimate concern for [the child's] safety, pursuant to the state's stay-at-home directives, her ultra vires actions were actually inconsistent with the Department's order. Mother's claim that compliance was unreasonable is therefore without merit.

Id. at ¶ 30.

{¶ 123} Father asserts that Mother's deliberate interference with his parenting time alienated the children from him, especially G.C. He contends that the court abused its discretion when it essentially allowed Mother to let G.C. make decisions about whether he wanted to spend time with Father, and the court “erred when it failed to recognize” that Mother was attempting to convince G.C. that Father was not a nice person and would somehow hurt G.C. Father points out that] Mother did not have concerns sufficient to cause her to file a motion to modify parenting time between Father and G.C. before she started withholding visitation between them immediately after moving to Minford. Father asserts that Mother had also “successfully damaged” his relationships with B.C. and M.C. by the time of the hearing.

{¶ 124} Mother responds that her actions were appropriate because she was protecting the safety of the children. She asserts that she “explained what her thought process was during the on-going pandemic, * * * acknowledged her mistakes * * * and agreed to make-up time.”

{¶ 125} With respect to contempt, we have noted:

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.” Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 271 N.E.2d 815 (1971), paragraph one of the syllabus; Fischer v. Fischer, 2d Dist. Clark No. 11 CA 81, 2012-Ohio-2102, [2012 WL 1657729], ¶ 10. To support a finding of contempt, the moving party must establish 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. Arthur Young & Co. v. Kelly, 68 Ohio App.3d 287, 295, 299, 588 N.E.2d 233 (10th Dist. 1990); Underleider v. Underleider, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2010-09-069, 2011-Ohio-2600, [2011 WL 2175553], ¶ 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.” Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid, 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 331, 708 N.E.2d 193 (1999).

R.C. 2705.031(B)(2) permits a trial court to punish a residential parent for any act which interferes with the court's visitation order. Depending on the facts of the case, contempt may be excused with actual or substantial compliance, but the Supreme Court of Ohio has rejected the argument that substantial compliance with a court order automatically precludes a finding of contempt. Geiser Durst v. Durst, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-02-38, 2003-Ohio-2029, [2003 WL 1918577], ¶ 18, citing State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 75, 573 N.E.2d 62 (1991). “Substantial compliance will not shield a disobedient party who is able to comply with a court's order from contempt sanctions.” Id. “A party must take all reasonable steps within [his or] her power to comply with the court's order.” Briggs v. Moelich, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97001, 2012-Ohio-1049, [2012 WL 896254], ¶ 15, citing LaHoud v. Tri-Monex, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96118, 2011-Ohio-4120, [2011 WL 3654403], ¶ 54.

An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's finding of contempt absent an abuse of discretion. Willis v. Willis, 149 Ohio App.3d 50, 2002-Ohio-3716, 775 N.E.2d 878, ¶ 59, citing State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 11, 417 N.E.2d 1249 (1981). * * *

Polk v. Polk, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24882, 2012-Ohio-2968, 2012 WL 2499450, ¶ 10-12.

{¶ 126} We have also stated:

An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983), quoting State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). “It is to be expected that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.” AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). Decisions are unreasonable if no sound reasoning supports the decision. Id. Accord Aldo v. Angle, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-103, 2010-Ohio-2008, [2010 WL 1819085], ¶ 33.

Montgomery v. Montgomery, 2d Dist. Greene Nos. 2018-CA-16, 2019-Ohio-1803, 2019 WL 2068463, ¶ 12.

{¶ 127} We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the “children were quarantined several times” and that Mother was not to blame for most of the missed parenting time. The GAL testified that the children were under quarantine orders twice, not several times, and Father provided copies of the orders. Father testified to multiple incidents when he was denied visitation in 2019 and early 2020, prior to the pandemic, and the exhibits documenting his exchanges with Mother supported these facts. In other words, we conclude that Father had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was entitled to court-ordered parenting time and that Mother was aware of his rights and violated the court's order. At an absolute minimum, it was uncontroverted that pre-pandemic (June 2019 through February 2020) visitation had been denied, and no make-up visitation had occurred.

{¶ 128} Having found that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find Mother in contempt of court for denying Father parenting time, Father's second assignment of error is sustained.

{¶ 129} The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father referred to this meeting as the October 17 “court case.”

DONOVAN, J.

TUCKER, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.