Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Don’t Let an F-Bomb Sink Your Custody Arrangement.


There should be no debate that many in our communities communicate in a less than elegant manner.  More directly, the F-bomb has become a verb, an adverb, a noun, an adjective, a pronoun – and in many instances, a surname.  As cavalier as this language may seem, few would argue about the negative effects such language has on and the poor example it displays for children.  And, some courts are now recognizing the ill effects when making custody determinations.

In a recent Ohio case, the Court of Appeals specifically relied on the parent’s profanity in affirming the trial court’s decision to terminate a shared parenting plan and to designate the parent without the “potty mouth” as the “sole residential parent and legal custodian.”  Sure, there were other issues in the case, but a great amount of time seemed dedicated to the parent’s language.  The trial court in fact referenced the testimony from a witness who quoted the parent as stating “’this f***ing bus driver does not know how in the f*** to park’ loud enough for other children in the playground to hear.”  The trial court relied on multiple witnesses who testified to the parent’s “socially inappropriate, public, profanity-laden tirades in front of” the child.  Ultimately, the Court of appeals affirmed the decision to terminate the shared parenting plan designating the non-offensive parent the sole residential parent and custodian.

This case also made the point that although in Ohio a modification of a prior order declaring parental rights can only be made with a finding of “changed circumstances,” the termination of a shared parenting plan does not require the “changed circumstances” finding.  R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) will require the finding of changed circumstances and a determination of the best interests of the child to allow modification of the prior order.  With a termination of a shared parenting plan, however, the court even on it’s own motion, as provided in R.C. 3109.04(E)(2), may terminate the plan with nothing more than a determination that termination is in the best interests of the child.  

Therein may lay the greater danger to a potty-mouthed parent in a parenting punch-fest.  With a motion to terminate a shared parenting plan, even routine foul language in front of the children may be enough to tip the scales toward a change in custody.