 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schwartz v. Osiatynski12/18/1997
reflects that Osiatynski called Lovinger as his own witness, and pursuant to the "invited-error" doctrine, he may not now prevail on an alleged error which he himself invited. See State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d249. Further, Osiatynski failed to request a written report from Theby, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(C), in order to obtain that report. Accordingly, these assignments of error are overruled.
Osiatynski's third and fourth assignments of error both relate to court orders affected by Schwartz's relocation to Florida and shall also be considered together. These state:
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER AFTER GRANTING APPELLEE PERMISSION TO RELOCATE.
IV.
THE MAGISTRATE ERRED AND ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN FAILING TO MODIFY THE APPELLANT'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION IN LIGHT OF APPELLEE'S RELOCATION.
Osiatynski argues the court abused its discretion when it failed to provide for visitation during all school vacations and during the entire summer, to compensate for the time he is unable to visit with the children, and when it failed to modify the child support obligations to reflect the costs and expenses associated with Florida visitation.
Schwartz contends the court did not err when it established the visitation schedule because the order provides for sufficient visitation, and a sharing between the parties of transportation costs for visitation.
The issue then presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion regarding Florida visitation.
Dom.Rel.Loc.R. 18 provides visitation guidelines which state in relevant part: (1) the child's weekend visitation with the non-residential parent shall take place on (a) the first and third weekends, commencing on Friday night at 7:00 p.m. and concluding on Sunday night at 7:00 p.m., and (b) the second weekend on Friday, extending from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m., with no visitation required on the fourth weekend; (2) the child shall visit one day during the week with the non-residential parent, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; (3) the child shall remain with the mother on Mother's Day and her birthday and with the father on Father's Day and his birthday; (4) the child shall annually alternate visits with each parent on holidays; and (5) the non-residential parent shall have six (6) weeks of vacation visitation and the right to schedule this in periods of time extending from one to six weeks in duration.
Here, the record reflects the court ordered the children to spend each national and major Jewish holiday alternating between parents, and awarded Osiatynski visitation any weekend during each month, and for six weeks during the summer. This order substantially complies with Dom.Rel.Loc.R. 18 visitation guidelines, and also considers the distance between the parties' residences. Therefore, it does not constitute an abuse of the court's discretion. Finally, the court ordered the travel costs to be divided equally between both parties and, thus, the court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to deviate from appellant's childsupport obligation. Accordingly, these assignments of error are overruled.
Osiatynski's fifth assignment of error states:
V.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO FIND APPELLEE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR HER DELIBERATE AND DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH APPELLANT'S VISITATION ON JULY 19 , 1996.
Osiatynski contends the court erred when it failed to find Schwartz in contempt for violating the visitation order on July, 29, 1996.
Schwartz u
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|