Battle Between Parents in Steele Case Results in Custody Change in Favor of Father
The Steele case is the conclusion of a hasty custody battle between Charles Steele and Bobbi Malocu (fka Steele). When two parents get a divorce, the court will either have the parents agree on a custody plan or will order a custody plan to be followed. When the court ordered custody and visitation agreements are violated, it can be a revolving door of one parent complaining of the violation, the court ordering the compliance of the plan, and then the other parent failing to comply. The court would give continuous orders and admonishments for compliance, and nothing would change until there was a significant change in circumstance to warrant a custody modification.
The Steele case changed that precedent when the Court changing custody due to constant non-compliance of the court ordered custody agreement. Therefore, the Steele case is an example of what could happen when a custodial parent interferes with the non-custodial parent’s parenting time by ignoring court orders. This decision was rendered on October 15, 2021, by the Second Appellate District (Montgomery County, Ohio).
FACTS OF THE RECENT STEELE V. STEELE CASE:
Charles and Bobbi were married on November 8, 2003, and had a daughter, referred to as M.S., in April 2004. The two decided to divorce in August 2007, where their custody battle began. Post-divorce, Charles and Bobbi had shared parenting, meaning shared custody and care, of M.S., which last approximately four years. That changed in May 2011 when the court made Bobbi the residential parent of M.S. and gave Charles parenting time. This plan remained until Charles filed for a change of custody in August 2018, where he alleged Bobbi was denying him his court ordered parenting time with M.S. In August 2019, Charles filed for temporary custody of M.S. pending the change of custody hearing filed in 2018.
May 2020, the Trial Court granted Charles temporary custody and made him the residential parent of M.S. The Court gave Bobbi visitation but ordered she have no contact with M.S. for the first 30 days that the child is living fulltime with her Father. Bobbi ultimately appealed the Court’s decision, which brings us to the current 2021 appeal case. Bobbi’s main argument was that the Trial Court should not have changed the custody agreement and when it did, and it failed to take into consideration the child’s wishes to remain with her mother.
Change in Circumstance Warrants Custody Agreement Change?
Mother argued that there wasn’t a “change in circumstance” that would warrant a modification of the custody, therefore the Trial Court should not have made any changes. Charles argued that Bobbi’s constant disregard for the court ordered visitation since 2011, by withholding M.S. from him, was in fact a change in circumstance that warranted a change in the custody agreement. Also, that Bobbi was preventing him from being able to bond and have a meaningful relationship with his daughter.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Father. It found that Bobbi had several opportunities to comply with the court orders since Charles filed for a modification in 2018 and she consistently failed to abide by the visitation schedule. The Court of Appeals also pointed out that Charles had received zero summer time, when he was supposed to have extended summer time, during 2018 and 2019 and that when he did have visitation with M.S., Bobbi was constantly interfering.
The Court of Appeals noted that Mother continued to disregard court orders even after Charles was made the residential parent of M.S. As previously noted, the Trial Court told Bobbi to have no contact with M.S. for the first 30 days she was with Charles so they could build a relationship, and she violated those orders as well. Bobbi had contacted M.S. on her cellphone and even attended one of her dentist appointments during those 30 days. This bolstered to the Court of Appeals belief that Bobbi was not willing or capable of complying with court orders and that if she was given residential custody back, she would not promote a relationship between Charles and M.S.
Best Interest of the Child Only One Factor Taken Into Consideration by the Court in Steele Case
Mother also argued that the court failed to properly apply the “best interest of the child” factors when it ignored M.S. wishes to remain with her in Ohio. The Court of Appeals noted that the wishes of the child are only one factor out of many that are looked at when determining the best interest of the child. Additionally, that Bobbi’s noncompliance with the visitation and not promoting M.S. to form a relationship with her father likely had an influence on why M.S. stated she wanted to remain with Bobbi. The Court supported this by pointing out that M.S. never had a real reason to not live with her Father in Indiana and that when she was there, she did well and did not express concerns about her living situation.
One interesting point the Court of Appeals made was Bobbi’s “relaxed” parenting style. The facts presented in the case mention that Charles had found “sexually explicit” conversations that M.S., who was 16 years old at the time, was having with strangers on social media platforms and expressed concern to Bobbi and M.S. about these actions. Charles took active steps to monitor M.S. and even took away her phone for violating his rules. Mother on the other hand, did not view the actions of M.S. to be concerning and even provided her with a phone when Charles took her’s away. The Court of Appeals viewed Mother’s actions as “detrimental to M.S. and put her safety at risk.”
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE HOLDING:
Overall, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Courts ruling of making Father the residential parent of M.S. Both Courts held that Bobbi’s constant failure to comply with the visitation schedule and actively preventing M.S. from bonding with Charles was reason enough to warrant a modification of the custody agreement. The holding in this case emphasizes the importance of residential parents with a custody order to comply with the parenting time order or potentially face a revocation of their custody.
Click here if you wish to read the decision in Steele v. Steele.
Experienced, Trusted and Professional Dayton Divorce Lawyers
Our experienced Dayton divorce lawyers at Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues can assist you with your divorce or dissolution related issues. To learn more, please go to our website at www.hcmmlaw.com or call us at 937 293-2141. We can schedule an in-person conference or one by phone or Zoom. We look forward to assisting you!
PUBLISHER’S NOTE:
I want to thank our law clerk, Emilie Holland, for the excellent job she did writing this blog article! Emilie is a third year student at the University of Dayton School of Law and will graduate this Spring.
© 2022, Ohio Family Law Blog. All rights reserved.
Attorney Robert “Chip” Mues has been focusing his legal practice throughout Southwest Ohio primarily in divorce and family law matters since 1978. Chip is passionate about family law and has proudly published the Ohio Family Law Blog since 2007. In addition, he is the managing partner of Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues. To learn more about him or the law firm, visit the firm’s website at www.hcmmlaw.com. Appointments are available in person, over the phone or by Zoom. Call us at 937 293-2141.