Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler
DAWN K. WARMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
GUY M. WARMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DIVISION Case No. DR2015-01-0063
J. Schiavone IV, for plaintiff-appellee.
Conese, for defendant-appellant.
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
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 ...