Benchic v. Skaggs
| Decision Date | 16 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21CA3942 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 913 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER R. BENCHIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SARAH M. SKAGGS, Defendant-Appellee. |
2022-Ohio-913
CHRISTOPHER R. BENCHIC, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SARAH M. SKAGGS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21CA3942
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto
March 16, 2022
CIVIL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT
David B. Beck, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellant. [1]
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
PETER B. ABELE, JUDGE
{¶1} This is an appeal from a Scioto County Common Pleas Court judgment that denied a motion to modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Appellant assigns the following errors for review:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AND RESTRICTING APPELLANT'S OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE PROBATIVE EVIDENCE."
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY APPLYING O.R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) TO RESTRICT APPELLANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE PRIOR TO MARCH 21, 2019."
{¶2} The unmarried parties are the biological parents of twin boys born in 2013. Approximately six months after the children's birth, the parties terminated their relationship. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint to establish a father-child relationship with the twins and request that the court either (1) designate him the children's residential parent and legal custodian, or (2) establish a shared parenting plan.
{¶3} Later, the parties agreed to designate appellee the residential parent and legal custodian and award appellant parenting time. On February 23, 2015, the trial court entered a judgment entry that reflected the parties' agreement.
{¶4} On January 15, 2016, appellant filed a motion to modify his parenting time. The parties later entered into an agreement regarding appellant's motion and, on June 21, 2016, the court modified appellant's parenting time in accordance with the parties' agreement.
{¶5} On November 20, 2018, appellee filed an emergency motion that asked the trial court to suspend the children's parenting time with appellant. Appellee alleged that the
children's uncle sexually abused the children while in appellant's care.
{¶6} The trial court granted appellee's motion and stated "that temporary custody" of the children "shall vest with" appellee until further order of the court. The court also suspended appellant's parenting time.
{¶7} On January 9, 2019, the trial court found that, concerning appellee's November 20, 2018 motion, the parties agreed to resume operating under the court's June 21, 2016 parenting time order. On March 21, 2019, the trial court entered an order that modified its January 9, 2019 order to add a provision that the children not have any unsupervised contact with their uncle, Matthew Benchic.
{¶8} A few weeks later, appellant filed a motion to modify the prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and asserted that a change in circumstances had occurred since the court's prior decree that designated appellee the children's residential parent and legal custodian. Appellant thus requested the court to designate him the children's residential parent and legal custodian.
{¶9} On December 15, 2020, appellant filed an ex parte motion for emergency custody and alleged that appellee "has been involved in a toxic relationship with her girlfriend" and that
the girlfriend recently contacted appellant. The girlfriend alleged that (1) the children had been "exposed to fighting, violence, drugs and mental illness," (2) appellee is "an unfit, mentally ill, drug abuser," and (3) appellee beat one of the children with a wooden spoon and slapped the child in the face. Appellant further claimed that his current wife, Megan, noted during the last visitation exchange that appellee's eyes were "completely glassed over" and appellee "was unsteady on her feet." Megan additionally noticed that appellee "stumble[d]" when appellee approached the children to give them a hug, and appellee "was unable to communicate with [Megan] because her speech was so unclear." The guardian ad litem joined in appellant's motion for ex parte emergency custody. The trial court subsequently granted appellant's motion and awarded him temporary emergency custody of the children.
{¶10} On January 6, 2021, the court held a hearing regarding appellant's motion for ex parte emergency custody. At the hearing, Caitlynn Roberts testified that she and appellee had been in a relationship for approximately one year that ended in October 2020. Roberts explained that in December 2020, after the relationship ended, Roberts sent messages to appellant and Megan that claimed, inter alia, that (1) appellee gave Roberts a black eye, (2) appellee smoked marijuana in front of the
children, (3) appellee is "lazy" and sleeps "all day," (4) appellee exposed the children to fighting, screaming, and violence, (5) appellee "is unfit and mentally ill," and (6) appellee takes twenty-plus pills each day. Roberts admitted, however, that she fabricated all of the allegations. Roberts stated that she was upset at the time and "just kinda wanted to start drama."
{¶11} After the hearing, the trial court held another hearing to consider appellant's motion to modify the prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. The guardian ad litem, Christine Scott, testified and recommended that the court designate appellant the children's residential parent. Scott related that one of the twins, Greyson, is educationally delayed by about two and one-half years. Scott suggested that appellee did not intervene in Greyson's education sooner and did not act quickly enough to ensure that Greyson had an IEP in place. Scott also indicated that appellee believed that Matthew abused the boys and that appellee initially sought counseling. Scott noted that, even though appellee continued to believe that Matthew had abused the children, appellee did not continue counseling for the children.
{¶12} Appellant's counsel attempted to question Scott regarding the abuse allegations, but appellee's counsel objected
and stated that he "believe[s] this is all res judicata." The court agreed and stated, "Yeah[, ] so why are you going there?" Appellant's counsel stated that he believed that the court needs to "know that [appellee] believes this still occurred" and that if she believes that it occurred, then "why wasn't it being addressed." Counsel advised the court that he would try to approach the issue in a different manner, and the court said it would "hold onto" appellee's objection.
{¶13} Scott continued her testimony and stated that, if appellee "truly felt as if her kids had been abused, she was not addressing that issue." Scott explained that appellee told Scott that the children "were still suffering effects from it, but she had them in no type of mental health counseling." Scott also testified that if any individual continued to require their children to deal with an unfounded and untrue allegation of sexual abuse, it would not be healthy or beneficial for the children.
{¶14} During appellant's testimony, appellant's counsel attempted to ask appellant whether he thought that it is in the children's best interests for appellee to continue to believe that Matthew molested the children. The trial court, however, did not allow counsel to continue with the questioning and sustained appellee's objection.
{¶15} After the hearing, appellant filed a post-hearing brief regarding the change in circumstances and alleged that Greyson's educational deficiencies and appellee's "complete fabrication of sexual molestation allegations" against Matthew constitute changed circumstances. Appellant asserted that the accusations "have had a significant impact on the children, the relationship between [the parties], the lack of trust between the parties, and [appellee]'s act of continuing counseling at Hope's Place. [sic]"
{¶16} On February 18, 2021, the trial court overruled appellant's motion to modify. The court (1) found that the date of the last decree was March 21, 2019, when the court entered an order regarding appellee's November 2018 emergency motion that asked the court to suspend appellant's visitation and (2) did not agree with appellant that a change in circumstances had occurred since the date of the court's last decree. The court recognized appellant's argument that appellee's continued belief that Matthew sexually molested the children and her decision to enroll the children in counseling constitutes a change in circumstances, but determined that neither of these circumstances was a change of substance so as to warrant modifying the residential parent. Moreover, the court found
that appellant "seems to harbor an intense grudge or anger towards" appellee with respect to the allegations against Matthew and that appellant appeared to be using his motion to modify the prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities "to prove his brother not guilty of allegations that were made prior to the last Judgment Entry entered in this case on March 21, 2019." The court noted that appellant did not litigate the issue and, instead, entered into an agreement with appellee. Ultimately, the court concluded that even if appellee's continued belief in the allegations is unjustifiable, her continued belief does not constitute "an event, occurrence, or situation that has had a material and adverse effect upon the children."
{¶17} The court thus denied appellant's motion to modify the prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. This appeal followed.
A
{¶18} Initially, we note that appellee did not file an appellate brief or otherwise appear in this appeal. When an appellee fails to file an appellate brief, App.R. 18(C) authorizes us to accept an appellant's statement of facts and issues as correct, then reverse a trial court's judgment as long as the appellant's brief "reasonably appears to sustain such
action." In...
To continue reading
Request your trial