Perrin v. Perrin, 109376
| Decision Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 109376 |
| Parties | EVERETT T. PERRIN, III, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HEATHER R. PERRIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., and Suzanne M. Jambe; and Douglas M Brill, for appellee.
Kronenberg + Belovich Law, L.L.C., Barbara A. Belovich, and Jacob A.H. Kronenberg, for appellant.
John J. Ready & Associates and John J. Ready, Guardian ad Litem.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Heather R. Perrin, n.k.a. Vescio ("Heather" or "Mother") appeals from the denial of her motion to modify the parenting order concerning her minor child with plaintiff-appellee Everett T. Perrin III ("Everett" or "Father"). Heather also appeals from the trial court's related decisions to grant three motions filed by Everett: a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence at trial, a motion for attorney fees, and a motion for litigation fees and expenses. After a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Heather and Everett were married in December 2010. Both Heather and Everett had been married to different people prior to their marriage; Heather had two children from her previous marriage. Heather and Everett had one child together, a son born on October 12, 2011. On December 9 2015, Everett filed a complaint for divorce. On January 8, 2016, Heather filed an answer and counterclaim. Ultimately, on May 25, 2016, the trial court entered a divorce decree. In connection with the divorce decree, the parties executed a separation agreement and a shared parenting plan. The separation agreement provided that Heather would maintain her ownership of the marital residence located in Bay Village, Ohio.
{¶ 3} The shared parenting plan designated Heather as the residential parent, stating in paragraph three:
The Mother shall be residential parent of the minor child for school purposes so long as the Mother resides in the Bay Village school district. If Mother for any reason elects to move her primary residence from the Bay Village school district, Father, so long as he remains within the Bay Village school district, shall be designated residential parent for school district designation purposes, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The minor child shall attend Bay Village schools unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or as ordered by this Court.
Paragraph seven of the shared parenting plan further specified that "[t]he residential parent shall file a notice of intent to relocate if they intend to move to a residence other than the one specified in this order." Further, the plan prohibited either parent from removing the child from the state of Ohio without the express written consent of the other parent, or pursuant to a court order. When the parties entered into the shared parenting plan, both lived in Bay Village, and the plan provided for each parent to enjoy equal time with the child on a rotating basis.
{¶ 4} On May 17, 2017, Heather initiated a post-decree custody proceeding when she filed a motion to show cause, a motion for attorney fees, and a motion to terminate the shared parenting plan. Heather requested an order from the court that Everett show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt "by reason of his apparent contumacious conduct as evidenced by his failure to comply with the terms of the parties' Shared Parenting Plan."
{¶ 5} On June 21, 2017, Heather filed an amended motion to terminate the shared parenting plan, or in the alternative, to modify the shared parenting plan. Coincidentally, the same day, Heather submitted a notice of intent to relocate in accordance with R.C. 3109.051(G). Heather also submitted an affidavit with the amended motion to terminate. In the affidavit, Heather stated that she became engaged to be married on May 24, 2017, and that her fiancé lived in Florida. Heather stated that it was her intention to move to Florida, and that her older children from her previous marriage would also be moving with her. Heather also stated that she was scheduled to receive a promotion from her current job with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and this promotion would involve filling a position in Orlando, Florida.
{¶ 6} On June 26, 2017, the court appointed a Guardian ad Litem ("GAL") for the minor child. On September 15, 2017, the court entered a judgment entry stating that the parties agreed to the joint appointment of Dr. Mark Lovinger ("Dr. Lovinger") as a custody evaluator. Dr. Lovinger was to conduct a full custody evaluation of the minor child, with full cooperation from Everett and Heather.
{¶ 7} On December 21, 2017, Heather filed a second notice of intent to relocate. On April 2, 2018, the magistrate ordered the parties to report to the court's mediation services scheduler to have the case screened for mediation. A mediation outcome report was filed on June 11, 2018, noting that the parties attempted to mediate but were unable to reach an agreement.
{¶ 8} On July 11, 2018, the GAL submitted his report and recommendation to the court. The GAL described extensive interviews with numerous individuals involved in the case, including Everett, Heather, their minor child, Heather's older children, Heather's first husband, Heather's current husband, other relatives, the child's teachers, Everett's coworker, and Everett's psychologist. Summarizing his interactions with Heather, the GAL noted:
Overall, there was a disturbing pattern of unsubstantiated allegations going back to a time before the marriage which were initially presented to the Guardian as reasons why Father should not be in [the child's] life to the extent that he currently is, therefore justifying, if not mandating a move away, to the state of Florida. Proof of those allegations, many of which have been discussed in this report, and some of which have not been discussed in detail, was never provided, for various reasons. In the absence of proof of those rather serious charges, there is concern that those charges are untrue or exaggerated, and being made to justify a relocation which is otherwise unjustified.
Ultimately, the GAL recommended that the court deny Heather's motion to terminate the shared parenting plan and deny Heather's attempts to relocate out of state with her child. The GAL further recommended that if Heather relocates outside of Ohio, the court should award her long-distance parenting time. We note that although this recommendation was phrased in conditional terms, the GAL report reflected that Heather married her current husband and moved to Florida in December 2017. Finally, the GAL recommended that the court appoint a parenting coordinator to assist Heather and Everett going forward.
{¶ 9} On July 17, 2018, Heather voluntarily dismissed her June 2017 motions without prejudice. On July 20, 2018, Heather filed a motion to modify the current parenting plan. Specifically, the motion requested modification of the current parenting plan, termination of the shared parenting plan, and designation of Heather as sole residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child.
{¶ 10} On September 26, 2018, Everett filed a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence. The motion in limine argued that because this was a post-decree proceeding, pursuant to R.C. 3105.04(E)(1)(a), any evidence that arose or occurred prior to the journalization of the existing parenting order on May 25, 2016, is immaterial and should be excluded. On October 3, 2018, Everett filed a motion for attorney fees and an award of costs and expenses of litigation. On October 4, 2018, Heather filed a brief in opposition to Everett's motion in limine.
{¶ 11} At a pretrial hearing, the magistrate orally indicated that Everett's motion in limine would be granted. Trial began on October 29, 2018. The court held additional hearings on nine dates through February 22, 2019.
{¶ 12} At trial, Heather called Dr. Lovinger, Detective Kathleen Leasure from the Bay Village Police Department, her current husband, and Megan Langham ("Langham"), her former coworker. Heather, Everett, and the GAL also testified. Numerous exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection, and the court admitted six of Heather's exhibits into evidence over Everett's objections.
{¶ 13} The court heard testimony that Heather and her current husband met in 2013, began a romantic relationship shortly before her divorce from Everett was finalized, and were currently living together in Florida with Heather's older children. Heather's current husband also had children from a previous marriage; the children were also living in Florida and Heather's husband and his ex-wife had roughly equal parenting time.
{¶ 14} The court also heard testimony that Heather's former job at the Federal Bureau of Investigation has caused her significant stress. Related to this stress, Heather had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. This, along with her desire to blend her family with her current husband's family, prompted Heather to look for a new job in Florida. She found a new job with Disney and was living and working in Florida at the time of the trial, having relocated in December 2017 while the underlying case was pending.
{¶ 15} The court also heard testimony regarding multiple incidents in which Heather suspected Everett of stalking her threatening her, and breaking into her home. Heather testified about these incidents at length, and other witnesses testified as to their knowledge of these events, which was generally secondhand knowledge through...
To continue reading
Request your trial