context: However, the trial court did not have the authority to modify or change custody of the children based upon appellant's failure to encourage or implement regular visitation.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 14 O.O.3d 265, 267
citation_a.parenthetical: "the children of a dissolved marriage are not pawns whose custody may be used for the punishment of a wrongdoer"
citation_a.sentence: Culberson v. Culberson (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 304, 306, 14 O.O.3d 265, 267, 397 N.E.2d 1226, 1228 (“the children of a dissolved marriage are not pawns whose custody may be used for the punishment of a wrongdoer”); cf. Andrulis v. Andrulis (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 164, 166, 26 OBR 383, 384, 498 N.E.2d 1380, 1381-1382 (court’s modification of visitation and support orders exceeded the authority of the court for punishment and contempt).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 498 N.E.2d 1380, 1381-1382
citation_b.parenthetical: court's modification of visitation and support orders exceeded the authority of the court for punishment and contempt
citation_b.sentence: Culberson v. Culberson (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 304, 306, 14 O.O.3d 265, 267, 397 N.E.2d 1226, 1228 (“the children of a dissolved marriage are not pawns whose custody may be used for the punishment of a wrongdoer”); cf. Andrulis v. Andrulis (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 164, 166, 26 OBR 383, 384, 498 N.E.2d 1380, 1381-1382 (court’s modification of visitation and support orders exceeded the authority of the court for punishment and contempt).