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.

Warman v. Warman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

September 5, 2017

DAWN K. WARMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GUY M. WARMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. DR2015-01-0063

          Frank J. Schiavone IV, for plaintiff-appellee.

          Mark Conese, for defendant-appellant.

          OPINION

          RINGLAND, J.

         {¶ 1} Appellant, Guy Warman ("Father"), appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, following his divorce from appellee, Dawn Warman ("Mother"). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

         {¶ 2} Father and Mother were married on September 13, 2000 and had one child born on October 29, 2003. Mother filed a complaint for divorce on January 29, 2015. Father answered Mother's complaint and filed a counterclaim for divorce on March 17, 2015.

         {¶ 3} The matter was tried to the court where the parties introduced testimony with respect to parenting arrangements and allocation of marital property and debts. The evidence showed that the parties had substantial credit card debt that needed to be allocated. It is undisputed that Father was the primary source of income for the family. Father had an approximate annual income of $130, 000, while Mother worked part-time earning an approximate annual income of $17, 000.

         {¶ 4} Following the hearing, the trial court named Mother sole residential parent of their daughter, ordered child support and spousal support in favor of Mother, and allocated the parties' property and debt. The trial court divided the marital debts between Mother and Father, but also found Father responsible for a large portion of credit card debt that was found to be Father's separate debt. Father now appeals the decision of the trial court, raising three assignments of error for review.

         {¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:

         {¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT APPELLANT ONLY RECEIVE DR610 PARENTING TIME.

         {¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, Father alleges the trial court erred in its decision allocating parenting time. As noted above, Father argues the trial court should not have allocated parenting time pursuant to the Butler County Standard Parenting Time order DR610. Father argues that he has a good relationship with his daughter and should be allowed additional parenting time beyond what is provided in the standard parenting schedule. We find no merit to Father's argument.

         {¶ 8} A juvenile court is vested with broad discretion in determining the visitation rights of a nonresidential parent, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Gray v. King, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-01-006, 2013-Ohio-3085, ¶ 12. In making this determination, the juvenile court's primary concern is the best interest of the child. Carr v. Carr, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2015-02-015 and CA2015-03-020, 2016-Ohio-6986, ¶ 47

         {¶ 9} In establishing a specific parenting-time schedule, a trial court is required to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.051(D). Bristow v. Bristow, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-05-139, 2010-Ohio-3469, ¶ 16. The factors include, but are not limited to, (1) the child's interaction and interrelationship with his or her parents, (2) the geographical location and distance between the parents' respective homes, (3) the child and parents' available time, including each parent's employment schedule, (4) the age of the child, (5) the child's adjustment to his or her home, (6) the health and safety of the child, (7) the mental and physical health of all the parties, (8) the parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights, and (9) "any other factor in the best interest of the child." R.C. 3109.051(D).

         {¶ 10} Based on our review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its order regarding parenting time. In the present case, the trial court heard testimony from the child's counselor that the child had vocalized her desire to live with Mother and visit with her Father. Though Father argues that he should be entitled to more than the standard parenting schedule, he fails to set ...


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.