In re Marriage of Krejci
| Docket Number | 2023-A-0054 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 Ohio 1529 |
| Parties | IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL KREJCI, Appellant, and KATHERINE KREJCI, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
1
2024-Ohio-1529
IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL KREJCI, Appellant, and KATHERINE KREJCI, Appellee.
No. 2023-A-0054
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula
April 22, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Trial Court No. 2012 DR 00075
Kenneth J. Cahill, Dworken & Bernstein Co., LPA, (For Appellant).
Laura M. Wellen, Wellen Law Firm, LLC, (For Appellee).
OPINION
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Michael Krejci, appeals the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, for failing to enter an award of attorney fees and order to pay child support against defendant-appellee, Katherine Krejci n.k.a. Jameson. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.
{¶2} On May 15, 2012, the parties were granted a dissolution of their marriage. Jameson was pregnant at the time of the dissolution. A daughter was born to the parties on July 28, 2012.
{¶3} On August 30, 2013, the parties entered into a Shared Parenting Plan. Under the Plan, Krejci was ordered to pay child support to Jameson.
{¶4} On March 1, 2020, a Modified Support Order went into effect whereby Krejci was ordered to pay $495.89 per month as determined by the Guideline Worksheet.
{¶5} On June 9, 2020, Krejci filed an Objection to Administrative Support Order on the grounds that Jameson was credited with unjustified daycare expenses.
{¶6} On April 20, 2021, Krejci filed a Motion to Terminate Shared Parenting Plan.
{¶7} On July 28, 2021, Krejci's Motion to Terminate was resolved by the adoption of a new Shared Parenting Plan. Under the new Plan, the parties' parenting time was substantially equalized. With respect to child support, the Plan provided: "Child Support remains controversial and shall be heard at a hearing with the date thereof to be determined by further court order."
{¶8} On November 29, 2021, Krejci filed a Motion to Modify and/or Terminate Child Support on the grounds that "the parties entered into a modified shared parenting plan in which each parent received fifty percent (50%) parenting time" and "Defendant-Mother earns more money than Plaintiff-Father."
{¶9} On December 16, 2021, Jameson filed a Motion to Terminate or in the Alternative to Modify Parenting Plan on the grounds that "Michael is not suited to co-parenting" and "refuses to embrace the basic axiom that shared parenting requires communication and respect."
{¶10} On April 27, 2022, Krejci filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, pursuant to R.C. 3105.73, with respect to Jameson's Motion to Terminate or in the Alternative Modify Shared Parenting.
{¶11} On December 2, 2022, Krejci filed a Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
{¶12} On December 12, 2022, a hearing was held before a magistrate on Krejci's Objection to Administrative Support Order, Motion to Modify and/or Terminate Child Support, and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs; and on Jameson's Motion to Terminate or in the Alternative to Modify Parenting Plan.
{¶13} On February 8, 2023, a Magistrate's Decision was issued with findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶14} The magistrate sustained Krejci's Objection to the Administrative Support Order finding "no evidence to sustain a day care credit in March 2020."
{¶15} The magistrate granted Krejci's Motion to Terminate Child Support finding "it unjust and inappropriate and not in the best interests of the minor child for guideline support to be paid."
{¶16} The magistrate denied Jameson's Motion to Terminate the Parenting Plan based on the following:
Defendant does not believe the parties are communicating properly which requires a termination or modification of the Shared Parenting Plan according to her pleadings and her testimony. Defendant testified to four examples where Plaintiff made unilateral decisions in opposition of the Shared Parenting Plan
1. At some point, Defendant scheduled a virtual doctor appointment for the child due to illness and the child was diagnosed with asthma. Plaintiff did not agree with the diagnosis because it was done during a virtual appointment. It was agreed that Plaintiff would schedule an appointment for a second opinion. The second opinion appointment was scheduled and then rescheduled a couple of times by the provider.
Defendant was using Plaintiff's second opinion appointment
as a follow up appointment for the child's asthma diagnosis. Defendant felt that the appointment was scheduled untimely and that Plaintiff should have scheduled the appointment sooner especially since it was rescheduled by the provider a couple of times. Defendant never scheduled a follow up appointment for the child. Rather she piggy backed onto Plaintiff's second opinion appointment and then was upset with the untimeliness.
2. For the 2022-2023 school year, Plaintiff felt the child should determine if wearing a mask was necessary or not at school. Defendant believed that the child should wear a mask. Plaintiff signed a mask policy document he received from another parent indicating that the child did not have to wear a mask at school. Plaintiff told the child to keep it in her school bag if the school required it. Plaintiff signed the document without consulting Defendant.
3. During Parent/Teacher Conferences the first quarter of the 2022-2023 school year, a school counselor mentioned to Plaintiff that she was going to speak with the child about participating in Lunch Brunch. Lunch Brunch is where the counselor sits with students to discuss various topics during school lunch. The counselor indicated that she was going to ask several of the young girls that were the child's friends to participate. No permission from a parent was required. A child's participation is voluntary. Plaintiff did not discuss Lunch Brunch with Defendant.
4. The child's school football team went to the state championship. As a result, the school let students leave with parents at noon or they could stay and watch movies. This fell on one of Plaintiff's parenting days. Plaintiff made the decision to remove the child from school at noon without telling Defendant.
Defendant also indicates that the current Shared Parenting Plan is affecting the child's attendan[ce] and grades at school. Upon investigation into this concern, the Guardian ad litem found that in the first quarter of 5th grade, the child was absent 6.5 days. In the second quarter of 5th grade through November 30, 2022, the child was absent 8 days. The break down from the school which is attached to the Guardian ad litem Report indicates that the child has more absences while in Defendant's care. The child has not been tardy this school year.
The child had more absenteeism in the 2021-2022 school year.
During Plaintiff's parenting time, step-mother often assists with transportation to and from school.
Also in her investigation, the Guardian ad litem checked the child's academic record since the Shared Parenting Plan went into effect. The absences and the change to a Shared Parenting Plan schedule are not harming the child's academics. In fact, the child was on the honor roll the first quarter of this school year.
The Guardian ad litem spoke with the child regarding this issue. The child is happy and healthy. She wants to spend as much time with both parents as possible. The child has a loving relationship with both parents and half siblings in each parent's home.
The Guardian ad litem is concerned about the disparaging comments both parents make about the other parent in front of the child.
Parties have been using Our Family Wizard to communicate. Both parties believe OFW helps with their communication.
The Guardian ad litem is not recommending a change in the parenting time.
{¶17} The magistrate denied Krejci's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs based on the following considerations: "There have been approximately 20 hearings held in the [present] case on various motions and objections filed by both parties since the Decree of Dissolution. The motions and objections have included issues of parenting time and child support. Based on all the foregoing findings and applicable statutes, the Magistrate does not find it equitable to grant attorney fees and costs."
{¶18} On February 16 and July 25, 2023, Krejci filed Objections and Supplemental Objections respectively to the Magistrate's Decision.
{¶19} On August 16, 2023, the trial court overruled Krejci's objections and adopted the Magistrate's Decision.
{¶20} On September 12, 2023, Krejci filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Krejci raises the following assignments of error:
[1.] The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for attorney fees under R.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial