COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72774 MICHAEL O. LINDSEY : : ACCELERATED DOCKET PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : : AND RUTH E. LINDSEY NKA MOORE : : OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : PER CURIAM DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: DECEMBER 24, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Lower Case No. D-198252. JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: ________________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: John J. Ready, Esq., 500 Courthouse Square, 301 Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1021. For Defendant-appellant: Mary V.G. Walsh, Esq., 449 The Arcade, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. For Guardian Ad Litem: Becky Blair, Esq., 5885 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124. For Minor Children: Harry Babcock, Esq., 20525 Detroit Avenue, Rocky River, Ohio 44116. -2- PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983) 11 Ohio App.3d 158. Defendant-appellant Ruth Lindsey, nka Moore, appeals the order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which ordered the plaintiff-appellee Michael Lindsey to increase child support and to pay outstanding medical bills. Both parties were ordered to obtain counseling and the appellant was ordered to ensure that the son of the parties, Michael Lindsey (hereafter Michael, d.o.b. 2/1/86), comply with the visitation ordered by the court. No specific reference was made as to the other child of the marriage, Monica Lindsey (hereafter Monica, d.o.b. 7/16/84). The appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT MODIFYING CHILD SUPPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES AND STATUTORY MANDATES. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT MODIFYING THE PARTIES' VISITATION AND POSSESSION SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIFFERING NEEDS OF THE PARTIES' TWO MINOR CHILDREN. In the first assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the court erred when it failed to follow the mandatory procedures set forth in R.C. 3113.215. This assignment of error is well taken -3- given the ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court in Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139. The syllabi of the court held: A child support computation worksheet, required to be used by a trial court in calculating the amount of an obligor's child support obligation in accordance with R.C. 3113.215, must actually be completed and made a part of the trial court's record. The terms of R.C. 3113.215 are mandatory in nature and must be followed literally and technically in all material respects. Any court-ordered deviation from the applicable worksheet and the basic child support schedule must be entered by the court in its journal and must include findings of fact to support such determination. Because the trial court failed to ensure that a worksheet was actually completed, and failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court has no choice but to sustain the assignment of error. In the second assignment of error, the appellant contends that the court erred in failing to reduce Monica Lindsey's visitation and erred in attempting to impose visitation on Michael Lindsey when he is unwilling to participate. As a part of the trial court's order, two separate directions were given to the parties regarding visitation. In one section, the court determined that Michael Lindsey and Ruth Moore shall submit to counseling, regarding visitation and communication issues. In a subsequent section of the order, the court placed upon Ms. Moore an affirmative duty to ensure that Michael comply with the visitation schedule. The trial court made no mention of the visitation schedule regarding Monica. -4- This court has noted that when a child is unwilling to see the non-custodial parent and no useful purpose would be served by forcing visitation, visitation privileges may be denied. Pettry v. Pettry (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 350. However, if the child's unwillingness to visit the non-custodial parent is the result of influence by the custodial parent, a mere parroting of the custodial parent's wishes, or a result of lack of knowledge or understanding due to the child's age or not having known the custodial parent, the child's wishes and fears will be strongly discounted. Id. The trial court heard no testimony which suggested that Ms. Moore attempted to influence Michael's decision not to visit his father. Mr. Lindsey testified that he wanted to see his son and that he did not want the court to terminate his visitation rights. The appellee stated that he did not file a motion to enforce visitation because: I think it would hurt the kids. They went through enough now. (T. 100.) The Guardian ad litem testified that Michael was resistant to visitation and recommended therapeutic intervention between and among all of the parties. The guardian also indicated that she believed that Michael needed to see his father. As to reducing Monica's visitation, the guardian ad litem was unwilling to give a firm answer without further consultation with Monica. The reason given by the appellant for wishing to limit Monica's visitation was so that she might participate in more activities. The appellant admitted that although under a previous -5- court order to do so, she failed to discuss the proposed changes in the children's activities with the appellee. The appellee indicated a willingness to permit Monica to participate in outside activities, but testified that neither Monica nor the appellant had ever made such a request. In the case sub judice, the trial court properly determined that all parties should undergo counseling on the issue of visitation. There seem to be many issues which might be amicably resolved by the parties with such intervention; an amicable resolution clearly being in the best interest of the children. In addition, given the testimony heard by the trial court, this court is in accord with the trial court's refusal to terminate the visitation between Michael and his father. However, the court erred in determining that the appellant should be subject to the wrath of the court for Michael's failure to comply with visitation. In light of the order requiring counseling, the court should have correlated any perceived visitation difficulties caused by the appellant with the counseling order. The second assignment of error is well taken. Judgment reversed and remanded. -6- This cause is reversed and remanded. Costs are to be equally divided between the litigants. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. ______________________________ JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J. ______________________________ TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J. ______________________________ DIANE KARPINSKI, J. CONCURRING IN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. ONE, AND CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT ONLY IN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. TWO. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .