In re G.M.

[Cite as In re G.M., 2026-Ohio-1611.]


                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                     ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                           TRUMBULL COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:                                 CASE NO. 2025-T-0064

G.M.
                                                  Civil Appeal from the
                                                  Court of Common Pleas,
                                                  Juvenile Division


                                                  Trial Court No. 2009 JP 00064


                           OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

                                        Decided: May 4, 2026
                                         Judgment: Affirmed


Daniel G. Keating, Keating Law Office, 170 Monroe Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44483
(For Appellee, Heather Morgan).

Christopher A. Maruca, The Maruca Law Firm, 201 East Commerce Street, Suite 316,
Youngstown, OH 44503 (For Appellant, Benjamin Ward).


JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

        {¶1}    Appellant, Benjamin Ward, appeals the judgment of the Trumbull County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, overruling his objections to the magistrate’s

decision and denying his motion for contempt against Appellee, Heather Morgan, for

allegedly violating the companionship order regarding the parties’ minor child.

        {¶2}    Appellant raises two assignments of error, arguing that (1) the magistrate

abused its discretion and committed an error of law in failing to find Morgan in contempt;

and (2) the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law by not granting

Appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision.
       {¶3}   Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, we find that Appellant’s

assignments of error are without merit. First, Appellant’s first assigned error does not

present a valid basis for reversal. Appellate courts review the actions of the trial court

relative to the magistrate’s decision rather than the magistrate’s actions. Second, the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision. The trial court

determined that Morgan did not violate the companionship order during the summer of

2024 because Appellant did not arrange and pay for the minor child’s transportation from

Mississippi to Ohio, as required.       Appellant’s argument does not acknowledge this

determination, much less challenge it.

       {¶4}   Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common

Pleas, Juvenile Division.

                            Substantive and Procedural History

       {¶5}   Appellant and Morgan are the parents of G.M., a minor child who was born

in 2009. Appellant and Morgan never married. Morgan is the sole residential parent,

subject to Appellant’s visitation/companionship schedule.

       {¶6}   This case has been the subject of two prior appeals. In In re G.M., 2017-

Ohio-8144 (11th Dist.), we affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying Appellant’s motion

to reallocate parental rights. Id. at ¶ 1. In In re G.M., 2017-Ohio-8145 (11th Dist.), we

affirmed the trial court’s judgment finding Morgan in contempt for failing to comply with a

pending visitation order. Id. at ¶ 1.

       {¶7}   The proceedings underlying the instant appeal began in 2023. Specifically,

on April 17, 2023, Morgan filed a notice of intent to relocate herself and G.M. from Ohio

to Mississippi.



                                        PAGE 2 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
       {¶8}   In response, on May 17, 2023, Appellant filed a motion for the reallocation

of parental rights and responsibilities designating himself as the residential parent and a

motion to preclude Morgan’s relocation pending final disposition.

       {¶9}   On May 25, 2023, the trial court granted Appellant’s latter motion, and a

hearing on the former motion was scheduled for July 2023.

       {¶10} On June 8, 2023, Morgan filed a memorandum in opposition to Appellant’s

motion to preclude her relocation.

       {¶11} On June 30, 2023, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion to continue and

rescheduled the hearing for September 2023.

       {¶12} On July 6, 2023, Morgan filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment

from the trial court’s judgment granting Appellant’s motion to preclude her relocation. On

the same date, Morgan also filed a motion for an emergency hearing.

       {¶13} On July 25, 2023, the magistrate held a hearing. On July 27, 2023, the

magistrate filed an order permitting Morgan and G.M. to relocate to Mississippi and setting

an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s motion for reallocation of parental rights and

responsibilities.

       {¶14} On October 30, 2023, the magistrate held an evidentiary hearing. Prior to

the presentation of evidence, the parties reached a mutual agreement.

       {¶15} On November 16, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment entry adopting the

magistrate’s decision and memorializing the parties’ mutual agreement (the “November

2023 entry”). That entry provides, in relevant part:

       That pursuant to the agreement between the parties, [Morgan] and
       [Appellant], and for the best interest of their daughter, [G.M.], born
       [xx/xx/2009], the motions now before the court are hereby resolve[d] as
       follows:

                                       PAGE 3 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
           •   That mother, [Morgan], remains as the residential parent and sole
               legal custodian of [G.M.].
           •   That father, [Appellant]’s companionship to be set forth in an Agreed
               Judgment Entry (AJE) to be submitted by the parties and legal
               counsel prior to 12/01/2023. Said companionship is outlined as
               follows:

                  •    Thanksgiving holiday for 2023 and odd-numbered years as
                       more clearly defined in the AJE.

                  •    Spring Break from school each year, which does not include
                       Easter.

                  •    Summers with father to have the first six (6) weeks of the
                       summer recess.

        That the parties to share transportation with each parent being responsible
        for the cost to get [G.M.] to their residence. All as more clearly set forth in
        the AJE to be prepared/filed prior to 12/01/2023.

        {¶16} The record indicates that the parties prepared and circulated a proposed

agreed judgment entry; however, it was never fully executed or filed with the court.

        {¶17} On July 3, 2024, Appellant filed a motion for contempt. Appellant alleged

that Morgan violated the November 2023 entry by denying him companionship with G.M.

during the Thanksgiving holiday of 2023, spring break of 2024, and summer recess of

2024.

        {¶18} The trial court scheduled a hearing for September 2024.

        {¶19} On August 12, 2024, Morgan was served with the motion for contempt in

Mississippi.

        {¶20} On August 22, 2024, Morgan filed a motion to dismiss Appellant’s motion

for contempt on the grounds that any proceedings regarding G.M. must be filed in

Mississippi.



                                        PAGE 4 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
       {¶21} On September 24, 2024, the magistrate held a pretrial hearing and set the

matter for an evidentiary hearing in December 2024.

       {¶22} On December 18, 2024, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion to

continue and rescheduled the hearing for March 2025.

       {¶23} On January 7, 2025, the trial court granted Morgan’s motion for an in-

camera interview of G.M.

       {¶24} On February 26, 2025, over Morgan’s objection, the trial court granted

Appellant’s second motion to continue and rescheduled the hearing for April 2025.

       {¶25} On March 10, 2025, the magistrate conducted an in-camera interview of

G.M.

       {¶26} On April 23, 2025, the magistrate held an evidentiary hearing where it heard

testimony from the parties and G.M.’s adult half-sister.

       {¶27} On May 19, 2025, the magistrate filed a decision recommending denial of

both Morgan’s motion to dismiss and Appellant’s motion for contempt. With respect to

the motion for contempt, the magistrate found that the parties presented conflicting

testimony regarding the companionship with G.M. that Appellant allegedly failed to

receive during Thanksgiving of 2023, spring break of 2024, and summer of 2024. With

respect to Thanksgiving of 2023, the magistrate found that Appellant received more time

than the court’s standard guidelines provide for that particular holiday. With respect to

spring break of 2024, the magistrate found proof that Appellant had a weeklong visit with

G.M. According to the magistrate, “the real issue before the court is the failure of

[Appellant] to get his summer 2024 visit.”




                                       PAGE 5 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
       {¶28} On the latter issue, the magistrate noted that G.M. claimed to be “afraid” of

Appellant and “did not want to come to Ohio for six (6) weeks during the summer of 2024.”

G.M. also claimed that Morgan “did not stop her from coming to Ohio.” The magistrate

determined that G.M.’s testimony regarding her alleged fear of Appellant lacked

credibility. Instead, the magistrate concluded that G.M. was “a teenage girl [who] wanted

to spend her summer with her friends rather than her paternal family in Ohio.” In addition,

“[Morgan] testified that if [Appellant] had sent a plane ticket to her for the visit[,] she would

have sent [G.M.] to Ohio.” Appellant testified that he did not know the school schedule in

Mississippi; however, Morgan testified that she had sent it to Appellant. The magistrate

concluded that “based upon the credibility of the parties’ testimony, and for the reasons

set forth herein,” Morgan did not “willfully” violate the November 2023 entry.

       {¶29} On the same date, the trial court filed a judgment entry adopting the

magistrate’s decision and denied both Morgan’s motion to dismiss and Appellant’s motion

for contempt.

       {¶30} After an extension, Appellant filed objections to the magistrate’s decision on

June 20, 2025.

       {¶31} On August 21, 2025, the trial court overruled Appellant’s objections to the

magistrate’s decision.

       {¶32} On September 18, 2025, Appellant timely appealed and raises two

assignments of error.




                                         PAGE 6 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
                          Assignments of Error and Analysis

       {¶33} Appellant’s first assignment of error states: “The Magistrate abused its

discretion and committed an error of law in failing to find Mother/Appellee in contempt for

violating the trial court’s companionship schedule.”

       {¶34} Appellant’s first assignment of error challenges the magistrate’s purported

errors in recommending denial of Appellant’s motion for contempt. However, “appellate

courts generally do not directly review a magistrate’s actions. Instead, we review the

actions of the trial court relative to the magistrate’s decision.” Behrens v. Behrens, 2024-

Ohio-1121, ¶ 25 (11th Dist.). Therefore, Appellant’s first assignment of error does not

present a valid basis for reversal.

       {¶35} Appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.

       {¶36} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: “The trial court abused its

discretion and committed an error of law by not granting Father/Appellant’s objections to

the Magistrate’s Decision denying Father/Appellant’s motion for contempt.”

       {¶37} Appellant’s second assignment of error involves the trial court’s adoption of

the magistrate’s decision. “[A] trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decision will not be

reversed unless the trial court abused its discretion.” Marcellino v. Nicastro, 2022-Ohio-

2736, ¶ 37 (11th Dist.). An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise

sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶

62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004). “[A]n abuse of discretion may be found

when the trial court ‘applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal

standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.’” Carson v. Holmes, 2010-Ohio-

4199, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.), quoting Thomas v. Cleveland, 2008-Ohio-1720, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).



                                       PAGE 7 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
           {¶38} The Supreme Court of Ohio has defined “‘contempt of court’” as

“‘disobedience of an order of a court” and “‘conduct which brings the administration of

justice into disrespect, or which tends to embarrass, impede or obstruct a court in the

performance of its functions.’” Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d

14, 15 (1988), quoting Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971),

paragraph one of the syllabus. “A court may punish disobedience of its order, pursuant

to R.C. 2705.02(A) or the court’s inherent power to enforce its authority.” State ex rel.

Adkins v. Sobb, 39 Ohio St.3d 34, 35 (1988). “Where the contempt allegation is based

on violation of a court order, the order must be clear and definite with respect to the

precise conduct constituting disobedience.” Lanza v. Lanza, 2023-Ohio-3531, ¶ 7 (11th

Dist.).1

           {¶39} Appellant argues that “[a]t a minimum,” Morgan violated the November 2023

entry “as it relates to the summer of 2024 companionship.” He asserts that Morgan

“unequivocally stated” during hearing that she did so. In support, he cites Morgan’s

following testimony during cross-examination:

           Q. There is no excuse for last summer, you would agree with me? You made
           a decision not to send your daughter because you told her she didn’t have
           to go, right?

           A. Correct.

           Q. So, you would agree with me -- well, so you are in violation of this court
           order at least as it relates to that one issue?

           A. Yes, sir.




1. The record is unclear as to whether Appellant sought to have Morgan held in civil or criminal contempt,
which carry different burdens of proof. See Liming v. Damos, 2012-Ohio-4783, ¶ 11-12. Determining that
issue, however, is not necessary to decide this appeal.

                                             PAGE 8 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
       {¶40} Appellant’s argument misapprehends the legal significance of Morgan’s

testimony. Whether Morgan’s actions constituted a violation of the November 2023 entry

was the ultimate issue for the trial court’s determination based on all of the evidence.

Morgan’s above concessions during cross-examination are not dispositive.

       {¶41} In addition, Appellant’s argument does not fully acknowledge Morgan’s

testimony during her subsequent redirect examination:

       Q. [Morgan], since you’ve just been falling on your sword here, I don't know
       how much I can rehabilitate you, but you never got a plane ticket from
       [Appellant], right?

       A. No.

       Q. If he had sent you a plane ticket or at least -- you don’t get tickets
       anymore, we get confirmations -- what would you have done?

       A. I would’ve put her on that plane.

       {¶42} As stated, the November 2023 entry provides, in relevant part, that “the

parties [shall] share transportation with each parent being responsible for the cost to get

[G.M.] to their residence.” (Emphasis added.) The magistrate’s decision explicitly relied

on Morgan’s transportation testimony in recommending denial of Appellant’s motion for

contempt. By adopting the magistrate’s decision, the trial court effectively determined

that Morgan did not violate the November 2023 entry for the summer of 2024 because

Appellant did not arrange and pay for G.M.’s transportation to Ohio. Appellant’s argument

does not acknowledge this determination, much less challenge it. Accordingly, Appellant

has not established reversible error.

       {¶43} Appellant’s second assignment of error is without merit.




                                        PAGE 9 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
       {¶44} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.



MATT LYNCH, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.




                                    PAGE 10 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064
                                JUDGMENT ENTRY



       For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this Court, Appellant’s assignments of

error are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the

Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

       Costs to be taxed against Appellant.




                                                 JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND



                                            PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
                                                       concurs



                                                JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
                                                       concurs


           THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

    A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
              pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.




                                      PAGE 11 OF 11

Case No. 2025-T-0064