Sterbling v. Sterbling

In 1979, Mark K. Sterbling (plaintiff) and Susan K. Sterbling (defendant) divorced. Susan was awarded custody of the Sterblings’ one-year-old daughter. Mark was granted visitation rights. In 1985, Susan and her new husband moved from Kentucky to Ohio because her husband had changed jobs. In response to the move, a new visitation agreement was established by court order. One week later, Mark petitioned the trial court to hold Susan in contempt for violating the visitation agreement and requested that the court increase his visitation. In response, Susan filed a motion claiming that Mark had not paid for half of the daughter’s counseling and requested that the court require Mark to receive counseling before visitation resumed. The trial court referee held a hearing. The daughter’s psychologist testified that Mark should not receive increased visitation until the father-daughter relationship improved through counseling. The referee determined that it was in the daughter’s best interests not to increase Mark’s visitation but to allow for him to make up any missed visits. The referee denied Susan’s request that Mark receive counseling and pay for the daughter’s counseling. The referee also determined that Susan was required to share the transportation responsibility by picking the daughter up at Mark’s residence. Susan objected. The trial court reviewed the matter. The trial court determined that Mark should be required to pay for half of the daughter’s counseling but agreed with the referee’s other findings and entered a court order. The matter was appealed. On appeal, Susan argued that the trial court erred by granting Mark visitation rights without requiring he first receive therapy and by mandating that Susan share transportation responsibility despite the fact that she was not working.