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.

Adkins v. Adkins

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

November 20, 2017

REGINA G. ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CURTIS M. ADKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. DR2015-08-0654

          Frank J. Schiavone IV, and Joseph A. Cesta, for plaintiff-appellee

          Mark W. Raines, and Mark A. Conese, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant

          OPINION

          RINGLAND, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Curtis Adkins ("Father"), appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, following his divorce from plaintiff-appellee, Regina Adkins ("Mother"). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

         {¶ 2} Mother and Father were married on March 4, 2000 and had two children by issue of the marriage. Mother filed a complaint for divorce on September 8, 2015 and Father answered. The matter was tried to the court where the parties introduced testimony with respect to parenting arrangements and allocation of the marital residence and other debts.

         {¶ 3} The parties disputed the valuation of the marital residence. Mother testified that the marital residence was worth $118, 510 based on the valuation made by the Butler County Auditor. Mother also testified that the parties had sold a similar property across the street for $121, 000 after agreeing to pay the Buyer's $3, 000 closing costs. Father, however, contested the Auditor's valuation and stated that the home was worth $140, 000. At different times, Father stated that he would purchase the house for $140, 000, but conceded that he had not obtained financing and would need six months to a year to secure the necessary financing.

         {¶ 4} As to custody and visitation of the children, both parties raised concerns with each other's drinking. Father completed an addiction assessment, which indicated that he consumed ten or more drinks per day and engaged in drinking and driving. Two witnesses described Father's alcohol consumption at his daughter's soccer games. Though alcohol was commonly shared by the parents during these morning soccer games, the witnesses described Father's drinking in more concerning terms. One witness stated that Father drank throughout the soccer tournaments to the point of intoxication. The witness noted that Father was inappropriate at times and nearly always had a beer in his hand at the games. A witness also detailed one instance in which Father consumed an entire pitcher of beer in one sitting.

         {¶ 5} Following the hearing, the trial court named Mother residential parent and legal custodian of the children. Father was allocated parenting time in accordance with the standard parenting schedule. In addition, Mother retained possession of the house, and the trial court found the fair market value was $118, 510. Father now appeals the decision of the trial court, raising three assignments of error for review. For ease of discussion, we will address Father's assignments of error out of order.

          {¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 2:

         {¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S SHARED PARENTING PLAN WITHOUT TESTIMONY THAT PARENTS WERE UNABLE TO WORK TOGETHER OR A FINDING AS TO WHY IT WAS IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS.

         {¶ 8} In his second assignment of error, Father alleges the trial court erred by designating Mother as the residential parent and legal custodian of their daughters rather than granting his request for shared parenting. We disagree.

         {¶ 9} R.C. 3109.04 governs the award of parental rights and responsibilities. In making this determination, the primary concern is the best interest of the child. Albrecht v. Albrecht, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-12-240 and CA2014-12-245, 2015-Ohio-4916, ¶ 22.

         {¶ 10} In order to determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the trial court to consider all relevant factors. Bristow v. Bristow, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-05-139, 2010-Ohio-3469, ΒΆ 8. These factors include, but are not limited to (1) the wishes of the parents, (2) the child's interaction and interrelationship with his parents, siblings, and other persons who may significantly affect the child's best interest, (3) the child's adjustment to home, school and community, (4) the mental and physical health of all persons involved, and (5) the likelihood ...


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.