after the court threatened to hold her in contempt of court for On June 11 2004 after Wifes third lawyer filed a Wife filed a motion asking the court to tribunal On August 23 2004 Wife filed another ID: 896678
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "a businessman from Indianapolis As a re..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1 a businessman from Indianapolis. As a r
a businessman from Indianapolis. As a result of this friendship and research prompted by his discussions with Mr. Langsenkamp, problem, society would be in great risk come January 1, 2000. Husband decided (with Wifes agreement) that it was important to secure environment.
2 The Macfarlanes purchased property in Ne
The Macfarlanes purchased property in New Hampshire and moved there. Husband moved the work of the Mary periodically return to Cleveland. Wife continued to home school Husband testified that sometime in 2000, he started talking to Wife about enrolling the children in a tradi
3 tional school. He also discussed moving
tional school. He also discussed moving to Canada, where he had made own school for about eight families. From the outset of these a traditional school. This disagreement became a source of In June 2003, the Macfarlanes moved back to Cleveland. after the court threatened
4 to hold her in contempt of court for On
to hold her in contempt of court for On June 11, 2004, after Wifes third lawyer filed a Wife filed a motion asking the court to tribunal. On August 23, 2004, Wife filed another motion jurisdiction of the matter to the Diocesan Tribunal of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese for
5 resolution by arbitration. The trial c
resolution by arbitration. The trial court subsequently denied Wifes motions. On February 17, In the meantime, Husband filed an emergency motion granted possession and custody of the children to Husband during the children at Holy Trinity School. Although the original 1
6 First, the Supreme Court of Ohio has de
First, the Supreme Court of Ohio has definitively established that child custody disputes are not subject to 68 Ohio St.3d 26 (child custody and parental visitation are not subject to arbitration. The authority to resolve disputes over custody and Furthermore, Wife offered
7 no evidence of a written written abide b
no evidence of a written written abide by the Church teachings, doctrines and canon laws regarding marriage and the family, divorce and separation somehow created an oral antenuptial agreement to arbitrate disputes regarding their (4) whether the non-requesting party has bee
8 n prejudiced by the when she filed her c
n prejudiced by the when she filed her complaint for legal separation. In addition, she filed a counterclaim for legal separation to Husbands Husbands contest the courts jurisdiction. {¶ 22} Wife also substantially participated in the litigation proceedings for nearly o
9 ne year before filing her motion asking
ne year before filing her motion asking the court to refer the case to a church tribunal. Not only did she she filed a motion for support pendente lite. In addition, her counsel participated in several pretrials in which the parties conduct a custody evaluation, sell the pro
10 perty in New Hampshire first two lawyers
perty in New Hampshire first two lawyers withdrew, she retained a third attorney to represent her in the case. It was not until June 4, 2004, ten court to refer the matter to an otherwise undescribed canonical Furthermore, after reviewing the record, we agree with the trial
11 courts assessment that although both H
courts assessment that although both Husband and Wife it relied upon in concluding that Wifes actions were not In September 2004, this court was reluctant to change home schooling left this court no other choice. Her failure to were all part of her ideological battle in
12 driving force; rather it was her anger a
driving force; rather it was her anger at Mr. Macfarlane and her home schooling crusade that were the compelling forces of her court is required to consider the factors outlined in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), and may consider additional factors as well. Our parenting was in the best
13 interest of the child. Our review In h
interest of the child. Our review In her third assignment of error, Wife argues, for the allow attorney John Ready to serve as both guardian ad litem and of interest between the roles of guardian ad litem and counsel for Ready had become so prejudiced against Mrs. Macfarlan
14 e that he Wife waived this argument, how
e that he Wife waived this argument, however, for purposes of appeal. The trial court appointed Mr. Ready to act as both to the appointment of Mr. Ready in any capacity. Furthermore, although Wife contends that the scope of Mr. Readys alleged In her fourth assignment of er
15 ror, Wife complains that witness and jud
ror, Wife complains that witness and judge his or her credibility. (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77. The credibility of the because more witnesses testified for Wife than Husband. It was of Wifes witnesses contradicted that of Dr. Koricke, the court-appointed psychologist, and the
16 guardian ad litem, both of whom conside
guardian ad litem, both of whom considered all of the necessary factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (F)(2) and that there is competent, credible Ohio courts have interpreted these sections as they relate to domestic relations cases to mean that a court may not of custod
17 y or other issues related to the divorce
y or other issues related to the divorce. (1958), 150 N.E.2d 431. However, absent evidence in the conviction that either parents religious belief was in the best the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or the trial courts decision was motivated by a belief t
18 hat Husbands religious beliefs or pract
hat Husbands religious beliefs or practices were preferable to hers. Indeed, by a preference for either partys religious practices. Moreover, according to those beliefs. No one is preventing Wife from children at home. Accordingly, we find no violation of Wifes account
19 since Mrs. Macfarlane no longer partici
since Mrs. Macfarlane no longer participates in the Mary Foundation. The court is also taking into account that she will We find no abuse of discretion in the trial courts division of the parties marital assets. Appellants sixth by characterizing her unrelenting pursuit
20 to home school her her igorous concerted
to home school her her igorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. Our review of the record indicates that Wife vigorously and repeatedly argued her position that the children should be home schooled. We do not find the trial courts expression of her testi
21 mony about religious issues to be admitt
mony about religious issues to be admitted, but then later make her argument. Our review indicates that the testimony was to indicate that the trial court abused its discretion in reaching It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein It is ordered that a s
22 pecial mandate issue out of this court A
pecial mandate issue out of this court A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Pra