FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 13 DU 077323
APPEARANCES: JONATHAN E. ROSENBAUM, Attorney at Law, for
NICOL, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. SCHAFER JUDGE
Plaintiff-Appellant, Deanna Makruski ("Mother"),
appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division denying, in part, her
objection to a magistrate's decision. For the reasons
that follow, this Court affirms.
Mother and Defendant-Appellee, Daniel Makruski
("Father") were divorced on August 18, 2014,
pursuant to a decree of divorce. Mother was therein
designated as the residential parent and legal custodian of
the parties' two minor children, subject to Father's
parenting time. On August 18, 2016, Father filed a motion to
modify his parenting time requesting to increase his
visitation with the parties' youngest child prior to his
pending military deployment. The parties' oldest child
reached the age of majority prior to Father's motion.
A magistrate held an expedited hearing on September 29, 2016,
and conducted an in camera interview of the minor child on
October 3, 2016. In a decision filed October 7, 2016, the
magistrate determined that a temporary order of modified
parenting time was in the best interests of the minor child.
Accordingly, the magistrate granted Father's motion to
modify and ordered that "Father shall have temporary
modified parenting time order with the minor child for the
period prior to his deployment" as set forth in an
exhibit attached thereto. The magistrate further ordered that
Father was "to have the child during the entire duration
of any leave during deployment he may take and is able to
return to Ohio to exercise parenting time pursuant to [R.C.]
3109.051(M)." Finally, the order stated that upon
Father's return from deployment, the temporary
modification would expire and the prior court order of
visitation would resume. The trial court adopted the
magistrate's decision that same day and entered judgment
Mother thereafter filed an objection to the magistrate's
decision and an objection to the trial court's adoption
of the magistrate's decision, arguing, inter alia, that
"[n]either the magistrate nor [the trial] court had the
authority to modify the visitation schedule as it did"
because Father's deployment could not serve as a change
in circumstances. On January 3, 2017, the trial court
concluded that since the legislature had not offered a
definition of the term "duration of active military
service" and Father's "actual deployment will
occur shortly", Mother's objection with regard to
the visitation schedule was moot. Accordingly, the trial
court denied Mother's objections as it related to the
temporary modification order of parenting time.
Mother filed this timely appeal, raising three assignments of
error for our review.
of Error I
trial court erred when it overruled Mother's objections
to the magistrate's order increasing Father's
parenting time pursuant to [R.C. 3190.04(I)] and [R.C.