Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 18, 2006

On Wednesday, I had a post about the 8th District's decision in in re J.C., discussing the portion of the decision concerning access to agency records of child abuse in a custody proceeding.  The court rejected the father's attempts to obtain the records, finding that his allegations were "of a kind that is, sadly, all too common in custody cases."

That wasn't the only thing sad or common about the case.  The father had filed a motion seeking custody because of alleged visitation violations, the mother had then filed a motion to relocate her and the children to California, and then had done so before the court could rule on it.  The trial court granted temporary custody to the father, then ultimately reversed itself and gave the children back to the mother in California. 

To its credit, the 8th District reversed, finding that the lower court had given insufficient consideration to the devastating effect that relocation would have on the father's parenting rights, and remanded the case for that purpose.  Judge Calabrese, concurring and dissenting, would have gone further:  he would have awarded the father custody.  As he put it,

The crux of this case is the best interest of the children and whether the harm outweighs the advantages of the change in environment. In my opinion, what is in the best interest of any child is to have a relationship with both parents.

The mother in this case blatantly interfered with the children's  relationship with their father by moving them across the country, making shared parenting impossible. I find it hard to believe that she had the best interest of her children in mind when she violated the terms of the custody agreement. Her self-absorbed and spiteful actions amount to "harm" that outweighs any sunshine California may have to offer these children. They need their mother and their father. If the mother chooses to relocate herself to California and leave her children behind in Ohio to be raised by their father, so be it. She is free to move wherever she likes, but she is not free to violate a shared parenting plan by taking the children away from their father without the court first considering what is in the best interest of these children.

As far as I'm concerned, that's right on the money.

Happy Father's Day.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax
  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States