[Cite as Deeb v. Deeb, 2016-Ohio-845.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
Joseph Deeb Court of Appeals No. WD-15-013
Appellant Trial Court No. 11DS066
v.
Samantha Mascia-Deeb DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellee Decided: March 4, 2016
*****
Joseph Deeb, pro se.
Samantha Mascia-Deeb, pro se.
*****
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} This is an accelerated appeal. Appellant, J.D., appeals a decision of the
Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, dismissing his
motion for contempt against appellee, S.M.D. We affirm.
{¶ 2} The parties divorced in 2011 in Wood County Ohio. At the time, they had
two minor children. The parties entered into a shared parenting agreement. Appellant
lives in Perrysburg, Ohio. Appellee now resides in Buffalo, New York with the children.
{¶ 3} Appellant filed his contempt motion on November 26, 2014, alleging that
appellee had violated the terms of the shared parenting agreement. Specifically, appellant
contends that appellee, along with her parents have fabricated stories about him in an
effort to gain full custody of the children. Among other things, he contends, appellee has
accused him of not allowing the girls privacy when they shower. She has accused him of
threatening suicide if the girls attend church. She claims the girls do not want to see or
talk to him and she claims that appellant will not allow the girls to play sports. Appellee
has accused appellant of having a history of domestic abuse as well as a history of
threatening women in general.
{¶ 4} Because appellant is greatly concerned of the effect these allegations, he
maintains are false, will have on his relationship with his daughters, he is accusing
appellee of interfering with their shared parenting agreement. The agreement states in
pertinent part:
We want [the daughters] to know that they have two parents who
love them. To accomplish this, we have agreed to put our differences aside
in order to make their wellbeing a mutual goal. * * * We assert that we
shall cooperate with each other in good faith and with flexibility regarding
the best interests of our children, and that we shall make every effort to
2.
insulate our children from any future differences which may arise in the
joint decision making process. * * * We will encourage and support their
affectionate relationship with both of us.
{¶ 5} Appellant contends that appellee and her parents, through their lies to the
children and their behavior in front of the children, have done everything they can to
sabotage the purposes behind the shared parenting agreement-creating healthy
relationships between parents and children.
{¶ 6} On February 6, 2015, the trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction
regarding custody and parenting issues “due to New York being the home state of the
children.” The court dismissed his motion. Appellant now appeals setting forth the
following assignment of error:
I. The Court of Common Pleas has neglected to review the share
(sic) parenting agreement filed in 2011 where it specified a parenting
sharing program for the appellant and appellee that provide healthy and
caring schedule for the children where [daughter 1] and [daughter 2] will be
in their home in Perrysburg every other weekend from Friday to Sunday, 6
weeks during the summer break, other school breaks and holidays. The
Wood County Court had the kids’ wellbeing in mind in 2011 and in
February 9 of 2015 when the court returned an order of willingness to
relinquish the children jurisdiction to Buffalo New York Erie County
Family Court. Appellant filed an order of contempt against the appellee
3.
who is attempting to starve his two daughters their legal and natural right to
visit their birth home in Ohio by creating some delusional allegation to
cover her reckless actions and not having to answer to your court. The
Court of Wood County has the legal right to maintain jurisdiction based on
the share (sic) custody ruled in 2011.
{¶ 7} Ohio has adopted and codified (R.C. 3127) the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). A purpose of the act is “to avoid
jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other jurisdictions” in custody
matters. In re Palmer, 12 Ohio St.3d 194, 196, 465 N.E.2d 1312 (1984).
{¶ 8} R.C. 3127.15(A) specifies the following jurisdictional grounds for an Ohio
court to make an initial determination in a child-custody proceeding:
Except as otherwise provided in section 3127.18 of the Revised
Code, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination
in a child custody proceeding only if one of the following applies:
(1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the
commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within
six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is
absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to
live in this state.
4.
{¶ 9} “A trial court’s decision as to whether to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the
UCCJEA, as codified in Ohio R.C. Chapter 3127, should only be reversed upon a
showing of an abuse of discretion.” In re Collins, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 06CA000028,
2007-Ohio-4582, ¶ 15. The phrase “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of
judgment; rather, it implies that the trial court’s attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140
(1983). When applying the abuse of discretion standard, this court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621,
614 N.E.2d 748 (1993).
{¶ 10} For purposes of R.C. 3127.15(A)(1), Ohio is not the home state of the
minor children as they have resided in New York since 2011. The trial court stated that
“New York has indicated its willingness to accept jurisdiction.” Additionally, there is a
pending case in New York regarding the same issues appellant has raised in this motion.
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise jurisdiction
and dismissing appellant’s motion for contempt.
{¶ 11} We have no doubt that appellant deeply cares for his children.
Unfortunately we, as a court, are bound by the laws of this state which require this matter
to be heard in another jurisdiction.
{¶ 12} The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
5.
WD-15-013
Deeb v. Mascia-Deeb
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.
6.
Deeb v. Deeb
Combined Opinion