Riddle v. Riddle

2019 Ohio 4405

NATHAN RIDDLE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NICOLE RIDDLE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CASE NO. 9-19-08

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY

October 28, 2019

OPINION

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court Family Division

Trial Court No. 18-DR-0027

Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Cause Remanded.

APPEARANCES:

Joel M. Spitzer for Appellant

Todd A. Anderson for Appellee

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Nicole Riddle ("Nicole") appeals the judgment of the Family Division of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, raising various challenges to the shared parenting plan ordered by the trial court. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} Nicole and Nathan Riddle ("Nathan") were married on October 19, 2005. Tr. 5. Nicole and Nathan lived in Marion County for the first four years of their marriage. Tr. 7. They left Marion County to live in Delaware County and then Crawford County before returning to Marion County in 2010. Tr. 7. They both lived in Marion County continuously until after Nathan and Nicole separated in 2017. Tr. 8. During this time, Nathan operated a barbershop in Marion County, and Nicole, who worked in the mental health field, operated a practice in Marion County. Tr. 10-11.

{¶3} In between 2010 and 2017, four children were born as the issue of this marriage. Tr. 5. Doc. 53. In between 2016 and 2017, Nathan and Nicole's oldest two children began attending Marion City Schools. Tr. 13. In October of 2017, Nicole removed her children from the school system because she felt that God had called her to homeschool them. Tr. 13, 15. Nicole testified that she and Nathanagreed on this decision. Tr. 307. Nathan, however, testified that she made this decision without his agreement. Tr. 149.

{¶4} On December 31, 2017, Nathan and Nicole separated. Tr. 91. Nathan had already paid for the rent on their house in Marion County for January. Tr. 153. On January 5, 2018, Nicole moved to her mother's house in Crawford County and took the four children with her. Tr. 4. Nathan remained in Marion County. Nathan and Nicole worked out an arrangement in which Nathan had the children with him on Tuesday nights, Thursday nights, and weekends. Tr. 27. Nicole testified that she attempted to reconcile with Nathan and that she believed that he was a good father to his children. Tr. 17-18.

{¶5} On February 12, 2018, Nathan filed for a divorce. Doc. 1. At this time, all four of Nathan and Nicole's children were minors. Doc. 1. After February 12, 2018, Nicole stopped allowing Nathan visitation with the children at his apartment as had been practiced under their prior arrangement. Tr. 31. She only allowed him to see the children under her supervision at her mother's house in Crawford County. Tr. 31. Nicole testified that these actions were not in response to Nathan filing for a divorce. Tr. 30.

{¶6} In February of 2018, Nicole stopped homeschooling and enrolled her children into a public school system in Crawford County. Tr. 13, 35, 294. She enrolled the children in the school system the day after she consulted with her divorce attorney. Tr. 35. As a child, Nicole had been enrolled in this same schoolsystem. Tr. 167. Nathan testified that Nicole had "hated" her experience there and that he did not want his children in that school district. Tr. 167. He also testified that Nicole did not consult with him before she enrolled the children in the local school system in Crawford County. Tr. 167.

{¶7} On September 10, 2018, Nathan filed a proposed shared parenting plan with the trial court. Doc. 38. On October 3, 2018, the trial court held the final hearing in this divorce proceeding. Tr. 50. After hearing the testimony of Nathan and Nicole, the trial court issued a shared parenting order on January 4, 2019. Doc. 53. Nicole filed her notice of appeal on January 28, 2019. Doc. 60. On appeal, she raises the following assignments of error:

First Assignment of Error

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in not making a specific finding that its allocation of parental rights and responsibilities were in the best interest of the minor children and in not making a specific finding that the adopted shared parenting plan was in the best interest of the minor children pursuant to Rev. C. 3109.04(B)(1).

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in adopting the plaintiff's September 10, 2018 proposed shared parenting plan without a formal motion from the parties and erred and abused its discretion in adopting plaintiff's December 14, 2018 'post-trial' proposed shared parenting plan without a formal motion from the parties pursuant to Rev. C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a).

Third Assignment of Error

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in not only adopting the proposed shared parenting plan but also not considering the relevant factors in Rev. C. 3109.04(F)(2).

Fourth Assignment of Error

The trial court erred and abused discretion in adopting the plaintiff's September 10, 2018 proposed shared parenting plan because the September 10, 2018 proposed shared parenting plan was not submitted at a time less than 30 days prior to the hearing on the issue of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children pursuant to Rev. C. 3109.04(G) and the trial court erred and abused its discretion in adopting the plaintiff's December 14, 2018 'post-trial' proposed shared parenting plan because the December 14, 2018 'post-trial' shared parenting plan was not submitted at a time less than 30 days prior to the hearing on the issue of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children and submitted after the evidentiary hearing on the issue of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children pursuant to 3109.04(G).

Fifth Assignment of Error

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in allocating all four of the minor children's tax exemptions to the plaintiff.

Sixth Assignment of Error

In support of the initial determination of parental rights and responsibilities for the minor child and pursuant of Ohio Revised Code 3109.04, the trial court erred against the weight of the evidence and abused its discretion in determining that the plaintiff-appellee should be granted custody.

Seventh Assignment of Error

The trial court erred and abused is discretion by not making a finding that the advantages of ordering the children back to Marion County outweighed the disadvantages.

For the sake of analytical clarity, we will consider the second assignment of error prior to analyzing the other assignments of error.

Second Assignment of Error

{¶8} Nicole argues that the trial court erred by compelling the parties to submit shared parenting proposals in the absence of a motion from one of the parties that requests shared parenting.

Legal Standard

R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a) reads, in its relevant part, as follows:

Upon the filing of a pleading or motion by either parent or both parents, in accordance with division (G) of this section, requesting shared parenting and the filing of a shared parenting plan in accordance with that division, the court shall comply with division (D)(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section * * *.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a).

Legal Analysis

{¶9} The express language of R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a) allows for a party to request shared parenting in a "pleading or motion." R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a). On September 10, 2018, Nathan filed a proposed shared parenting plan. Doc. 38. The opening lines of this document read, in its relevant part, as follows:

Now comes the Plaintiff, Nathan Riddle, by and through Counsel, and offers the following Proposed Shared Parenting Plan to the Court for review and approval. The Plaintiff hereby requests this Court to adopt this proposed shared parenting plan as an Order of the Court.

Doc. 38. Thus, Nathan, one of the parties to this action, expressly requested shared parenting in a filing with the trial court. Nicole alleges that the trial court, at a status conference on December 14, 2018, ordered each of the parties to submit proposed shared parenting plans. Appellant's Brief, 10. This order was after Nathan requested shared parenting on September 10, 2018. Since Nathan requested a shared parenting plan in compliance with R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a), Nicole's second assignment of error is overruled.

First Assignment of Error

{¶10} Nicole argues that the trial court failed to make an express finding that the allocation of parental rights was in the best interest of the children.

Legal Standard

{¶11} Because the appellant's first and third assignments of error are similar in nature, we will set forth one legal standard here to govern both of these alleged errors. R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) governs the process of allocating parental rights and responsibilities, reading, in its relevant part, as follows:

When making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children under this section in an original proceeding or in any proceeding for modification of a prior order of the court making the allocation, the court shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of the children.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 3109.04(B)(1).

{¶12} In determining whether a shared parenting plan is in the best interest of the children, R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) provides a list of non-exclusive factors that a trial court is to consider and then directs a trial court to also "consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors enumerated in division (F)(1) of this section." R.C. 3109.04(F)(2). R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) similarly contains a list of non-exclusive factors that a trial court is to consider in the process of "determining the best interest of a child" under R.C. 3109.04. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

{¶13} Further, "[p]ursuant to Civ.R. 52, a trial court may enter general judgment for the prevailing party."...