## Facts

- Ann Valentine (mother) and Charles Valentine (father) married in 1996 and divorced in 2003.
- The couple had two children.
- The divorce decree named Ann the sole residential parent and granted Charles parenting time.
- The decree required Ann to make the children available for, and encourage their participation in, weekly telephone calls with Charles.
- The divorce proceedings were contentious, and the parties were unable to cooperate.
- On October 8 and October 15, 2003, Ann failed to make the children available for the ordered one-hour call with Charles.
- After the missed calls, Charles sought post-decree modification orders.
- Ann responded by requesting permission to relocate the children from Ohio to New Jersey.
- The children had an established schedule in Ohio, were adjusted to their living environment, and had relationships with both parents.
- Ann testified that moving to New Jersey would benefit the children and would make her feel safer because she could be free from Charles’s alleged “stalking” behavior.
- Charles testified that relocating to New Jersey would effectively end his relationship with the children and that he believed the move was intended to interfere with his ability to see them.
- The trial court found Ann in contempt for failing to accommodate Charles’s court-ordered phone contact.
- The trial court also found a change in circumstances based on Ann’s proposed move, found the move would harm the children and was not in their best interests, and ordered the children to remain in Ohio until further notice.
- Ann appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding Ann in contempt for failing to make the children available for court-ordered weekly telephone contact with Charles.
2. Whether Ann’s proposed relocation of the children from Ohio to New Jersey constituted a change in circumstances warranting post-decree intervention regarding the prior custody arrangement.
3. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that preventing relocation and requiring the children to remain in Ohio was in the children’s best interests.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s contempt finding based on Ann’s failure to provide the ordered telephone contact.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination that Ann’s proposed relocation supported a change-in-circumstances finding and justified the court’s order preventing the move.
- The appellate court affirmed the order requiring the children to remain in Ohio, concluding the trial court acted within its discretion in finding the move would harm the children and was not in their best interests.

## Legal Principles

- A party may be held in contempt for willfully failing to comply with a clear and definite court order, including orders governing parent-child communication.
- Post-decree custody-related orders in Ohio generally require the court to find a change in circumstances and to determine that the requested change is in the child’s best interests.
- A proposed relocation by the residential parent can constitute a change in circumstances when the move would materially affect the child’s stability, routines, or relationship with the other parent.
- In evaluating best interests, courts consider factors such as the child’s adjustment to home and community and the child’s relationships with each parent, along with the practical effect of a move on parenting time and ongoing contact.
- Appellate review of custody-related determinations is deferential; where the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, credible evidence, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment on disputed facts and credibility.

## Conclusion

In *Valentine v. Valentine*, the court upheld the trial court’s contempt finding against the mother for missing ordered weekly telephone calls and upheld the order preventing her from relocating the children to New Jersey, based on the trial court’s findings that the proposed move constituted a change in circumstances and would harm the children’s best interests.


Valentine v. Valentine, 2005 WL 1131748 (2005)