The Ohio Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court's ruling in a parenting case, impacting how contempt findings are handled in family law. The case, Cofer v. Boggan (C-250673), involved a dispute between Wilbur Cofer and Parisian Boggan regarding parenting time with their daughter. The decision highlights the importance of evidence in court proceedings, particularly in matters of parental rights.
In this case, the court found that Boggan, the mother, had failed to comply with a previous order allowing Cofer, the father, parenting time with their five-year-old daughter, A.C. The lower court had initially held Boggan in contempt but allowed her to purge the contempt by paying a fine and making up missed parenting time. However, Cofer argued that the make-up time never occurred, leading to the appeal.
The dispute began after the trial court designated Boggan as the sole residential parent of A.C. in March 2025. Cofer filed a contempt motion in May 2025, claiming that Boggan regularly denied him parenting time and phone calls with A.C. Following a hearing, the magistrate found Boggan in contempt, imposing a $250 fine and a 30-day jail sentence, which she could avoid by complying with the purge conditions.
As part of the contempt ruling, Boggan was required to allow Cofer 11 days of make-up parenting time. A hearing was scheduled for November 2025 to determine whether she had satisfied these conditions. During this hearing, Boggan's attorney claimed that A.C. had refused to visit her father, suggesting that the child’s refusal was the reason for not fulfilling the parenting time requirement. However, Cofer's attorney disputed this claim and indicated that he had evidence to support his position.
The trial court ultimately sided with Boggan based solely on her attorney's statements, concluding that she had purged the contempt. This decision was made without any evidence being presented to support the claims made by Boggan's counsel. Cofer subsequently appealed the ruling, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing evidence to be presented.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with Cofer. The court stated, "The trial court lacked any evidence upon which to base its factual findings." It emphasized that attorney statements alone do not constitute evidence in court. The court highlighted that for a contempt ruling to be purged, the contemnor must demonstrate compliance with the purge conditions, and this requires evidence.
The judges involved in this ruling were Kinsley, Bock, and Nestor. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Boggan had indeed fulfilled the parenting time conditions of her contempt.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the necessity of evidence in legal proceedings, particularly in family law cases where parental rights are at stake. The decision underscores that courts must not rely solely on attorney representations but must require factual evidence to support claims made during hearings.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond this specific case. It sets a precedent for how courts handle contempt findings in family law, emphasizing the importance of due process and the need for a fair hearing where both parties can present evidence. This ruling may influence future cases where similar issues arise, ensuring that parents' rights are protected through proper legal procedures.
As for what’s next, the case will return to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. This means that both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence regarding whether Boggan complied with the court's orders. The outcome of this hearing could further affect the parenting arrangements between Cofer and Boggan, depending on the findings.