Login | October 18, 2024
10th District appellate panel reverses lower court’s parenting costs ruling
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 17, 2024
A Franklin County appellate panel reversed a lower court ruling requiring the father of a 12-year-old boy to shoulder half the costs of sending his son to and from Australia three times a year so the boy’s mother may have parenting time.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals panel determined that it was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion to require Emmanuel Lee, who bears sole responsibility for all of his son’s daily living expenses as the residential parent, to pay for the cost of flights and hotel accommodations associated with the exercise of Goldi Capalungan’s parenting time.
“The trial court should have ordered (the) mother to be solely responsible for the cost of transporting the child to and from the United States and Australia, including the travel expenses of the accompanying chaperone for the child,” Tenth District Judge Betsy Luper Schuster wrote for the 3-0 panel.
According to case background, the boy was born in the Philippines in 2012 to his unmarried parents.
Capalungan moved with her 3-year-old son to Australia in January 2016 in pursuit of a job opportunity, while Lee relocated to the United States, where he still resides and was granted citizenship, summary detailed.
Capalungan brought the boy to the United States in 2017 to live with his father while she completed career training, and Lee enrolled the boy in school.
Their child remained in Lee’s care when Capalungan returned to Australia.
Lee had filed a complaint for shared parenting of his son during this time period, summary provided.
The parties subsequently entered into an agreed entry which approved and adopted the shared parenting plan, designating Lee the residential parent for school placement purposes.
In the agreed entry, the parents agreed to informal parenting time for Capalungan to be arranged by both parties at least twice a year.
After filing an initial motion to modify or terminate shared parenting, withdrawing it and filing an unsuccessful Hague Convention child-abduction action in federal court, Capalungan filed a second motion to modify or terminate shared parenting Nov. 27, 2019.
Lee filed his own motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities by terminating the parties’ shared parenting plan, summary continued.
The magistrate issued on May 20, 2020, a temporary order granting the child’s mother summer parenting time in Australia from the beginning of June through the beginning of August.
The temporary order designated that she would pay for the initial cost of the child’s flight to and from Australia and ordered the father to reimburse half the cost.
In addition, the temporary order required Lee to pay any hotel accommodations necessary during the transfer of the child to and from Australia and ordered the mother to reimburse half the cost within 30 days.
Lee filed a motion to stay the execution of the magistrate’s temporary order on May 29, 2020, and the trial court denied the motion.
At trial, Lee testified the parties always intended to live in the United States and agreed the child would remain here to obtain citizenship and go to school.
Capalungan refuted the testimony, testifying that the parties knew the boy’s U.S. residence was intended to be temporary and he was supposed to return to Australia to live with his mother.
The child has lived in the United States with his father since February 2017, and his mother has visited one time since then, visiting him between December 2017 and January 2018, summary provided.
Capalungan has refused to come to the United States again and seeks only to have the child join her in Australia.
Lee has paid for all expenses related to the child’s care since 2017 when the child came to live with him. Capalungan pays no child support.
On Jan. 12, 2023, the magistrate issued a decision ordering the mother to receive parenting time in Australia every spring break of the child’s school year, half of every winter break of the child’s school year, and four weeks in the first half of the summer months depending on flight schedules.
Additionally, the magistrate ordered the parents share in the expense of air travel and hotel stays related to the boy’s visits to his mother.
The Franklin County Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Lee subsequently appealed the court ruling.
“We agree with (Lee) that requiring him to pay for the cost of travel and hotel accommodations associated with the exercise of (Capalungan’s) parenting time in Australia is unreasonable,” Luper Schuster wrote. “The trial court determined the parties have similar incomes. Additionally, the trial court noted (the) mother has been resolute in her refusal to travel to the United States and has foregone years of visitation with the child because of her position.”
The appellate panel noted that Lee has consistently agreed to parenting time for his son’s mother in the United States.
“Because it is (Capalungan) who is adamant that her parenting time shall only occur in Australia, and because there is no dispute father bears all other financial responsibility associated with raising the child, we find it is unreasonable to require (the) father to be additionally financially responsible for the considerable expense of multiple international trips per year to accommodate (the) mother’s parenting time.”
Tenth District judges Terri Jamison and Carly Edelstein joined Luper Schuster’s opinion, which remands the case to the lower court.
Copyright © 2024 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved