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.

Carmosino v. Carmosino

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Clermont

July 30, 2018

DEBRA CARMOSINO n.k.a. WIEST, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD CARMOSINO, Defendant-Appellee.

          APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. 2010DRA00733

          Hugan Law, LLC, Mary Jill Hugan, for plaintiff-appellant

          John Woliver, for defendant-appellee

          OPINION

          S. POWELL, P.J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Debra Carmosino n.k.a. Wiest, appeals the decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, finding her in contempt for failing to comply with the trial court's standard parenting time schedule regarding the parenting time of defendant-appellee, Richard Carmosino, with the parties' minor son, C.C. Wiest also appeals the trial court's decision ordering her to pay $500 towards Carmosino's attorney fees and any outstanding court costs associated with Carmosino's motion for contempt. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.

         {¶ 2} On September 2, 2011, Wiest and Carmosino were divorced. While married, Wiest and Carmosino had two children born issue of the marriage, a girl born on April 2, 1995 and a boy, C.C., born on December 18, 2006. As part of their divorce, Wiest was named the residential parent and legal custodian of the children, whereas Carmosino was awarded parenting time. Because the parties could not reach an agreement as to Carmosino's parenting time, Carmosino was awarded parenting time in accordance with the trial court's standard parenting time schedule.

         {¶ 3} It is clear Wiest and Carmosino have significant animosity towards one another, most of which appears to originate with Carmosino's fiancé and her relationship with the parties' children. This is evidenced by the numerous post-decree motions filed with the trial court, including a motion to modify the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and several competing motions for contempt. One such motion, the motion subject to this appeal, is Carmosino's motion for contempt filed with the trial court on June 13, 2017, wherein Carmosino alleged Wiest denied him his parenting time with C.C. between March 2, 2017 through June 1, 2017 in violation of the trial court's standard parenting time schedule.

         {¶ 4} On August 25, 2017, a hearing on Carmosino's contempt motion was held before a trial court magistrate. As part of this hearing, the magistrate heard testimony from Wiest, Carmosino, and C.C.'s counselor, Gene Colina, among others. Following this hearing, the magistrate issued a decision finding Wiest in contempt for failing to comply with the trial court's standard parenting time schedule regarding Carmosino's parenting time with C.C. The magistrate also ordered Wiest to pay $500 towards Carmosino's attorney fees and any outstanding court costs associated with Carmosino's motion for contempt.

         {¶ 5} On September 21, 2017, Wiest filed objections to the magistrate's decision, which she thereafter amended on October 24, 2017. As part of these amended objections, Wiest argued the magistrate erred by "[f]ailing to find that it would not be in [C.C.'s] best interest for [her] to force [C.C.] to spend time with [Carmosino] with [C.C.'s] current level of anxiety and that the child's therapist [Colina] does not recommend that course of action." Wiest also argued the magistrate erred by "[f]ailing to find [she] relied upon the child's therapist [Colina] in not forcing [C.C.] to see [Carmosino]." Wiest further argued the magistrate erred by ordering her to pay $500 towards Carmosino's attorney fees and any outstanding court costs associated with Carmosino's motion for contempt.

         {¶ 6} On December 19, 2017, the trial court issued a decision denying Wiest's objections to the magistrate's decision. In so holding, the trial court found Wiest failed to prove she was justified in her decision not to "force" C.C. to go with Carmosino during Carmosino's parenting time. Specifically, the trial court found Colina's testimony indicating he recommended Wiest not "force" C.C. to go with Carmosino carried little weight given the fact he "qualified his answer by testifying that due to malpractice he cannot ever recommend that a parent force his/her child to spend time with the other parent." The trial court also found the evidence did not support a finding that "[C.C.'s] anxiety rises to the level that parenting time with [Carmosino] will cause [C.C] physical or mental harm." The trial court further affirmed the magistrate's decision ordering Wiest to pay $500 towards Carmosino's attorney fees and any outstanding court costs associated with Carmosino's motion for contempt.

         {¶ 7} Wiest now appeals from the trial court's decision, raising two assignments of error for review.

         {¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:

         {¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING MOTHER IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.

         {¶ 10} In her first assignment of error, Wiest argues the trial court erred by finding her in contempt for failing to follow the trial court's standard parenting time schedule ...


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.