Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kinas v. Kinas

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District

July 25, 2013

AUDRIE O. KINAS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
STEVEN W. KINAS DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. D-334547

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Anne C. Fantelli Stafford & Stafford Co., L.P.A.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Michele M. Lazzaro Lazzaro and Kraus GUARDIAN AD LITEM Sheila A. Duffy.

BEFORE: Blackmon, J., S. Gallagher, P.J., and McCormack, J.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE

{¶1} Appellant Audrie O. Kinas ("mother") appeals the trial court's decision designating Steven W. Kinas ("father") as the residential parent and assigns the following three errors for our review:

I. The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by designating the appellee as the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor children.
II. The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by failing to grant the appellant's motion for continuance of the trial.
III. The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by denying appellant's Exhibit 11 admission into evidence.

{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court's decision. The apposite facts follow.

Facts

{¶3} The parties were married on August 25, 2001. Two children were born of the marriage. (N.K., DOB: Mar. 14, 2004, and A.K., DOB: Apr. 26, 2006.)

{¶4} On December 14, 2010, the mother filed for divorce. After continuing the matter several times, the trial was conducted on October 13, 2011, July 11-13, 2012, and July 16, 2012.[1]

{¶5} The record shows that the marriage had problems from the start. The mother testified that the father restricted her access to their money accounts and placed her on a curfew. She stated that the father was very controlling to the point he would become upset if he believed the house was not cleaned to his required standards.

{¶6} She also contended that the father would not permit her to work once the children were born. She was a licensed cosmetologist and was a hair-stylist prior to having children. She has been taking courses to become a physical therapist. She attempted to work part-time at a doctor's office, but according to her, the father made her quit. She claimed the father was rarely home due to the fact he worked several jobs; therefore, he did not have much interaction with the children. The mother stated she was the one who provided for all the children's needs.

{¶7} The father testified that he works about 70 hours a week as a Cleveland police officer and at various side jobs. He admitted that the mother had been the primary caregiver of the children, but felt that the kids were now of an age where they would benefit from receiving attention from both parents. He stated that he is attentive to their needs and is good at guiding them and explaining things to them.

{¶8} The father contended he allowed the mother access to the marital funds until she began to overdraw on the accounts. He then restricted her use of the accounts. This was during a period that the father was laid off from his job as a police officer; therefore, it was a financially and emotionally stressful time.

{¶9} The father also denied setting a curfew for the mother. He explained that on the days he was not working, he requested that the mother not schedule anything for the children so that he could spend time with them. However, when she was angry with him, she would leave with the children, depriving him of time with them. He called her frequently in the evenings because he suspected she was having an affair due to activity he saw on her cellphone bill, and a friend of the father's had seen her with another man.

{ΒΆ10} The father testified that he did not forbid her from working and explained that if she worked part-time it would affect their medical insurance coverage. Therefore, if she was not willing to work full-time, it was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.