2022 Ohio 2382
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Parents unmarried; son C.A. born Sept. 19, 2011; juvenile court adopted a shared parenting plan in 2012.
- Relationship worked until roughly the COVID-19 pandemic and Father's remarriage in Aug. 2020; disputes arose over school mask mandates/homeschooling and youth football (Father coached and later was removed as coach).
- Parents live very close (≈500 feet); both loving but increasingly unable to cooperate on parenting decisions.
- Father filed a motion to change parental rights and responsibilities (Oct. 12, 2020); Mother alternatively asked that she be designated residential parent if shared parenting was terminated.
- Juvenile court terminated the shared parenting plan, named Mother residential parent and legal custodian, left parenting schedule intact, and ordered support; Father appealed.
- This Court affirmed termination and custody designation, rejected Father’s GAL-procedure challenge, but remanded for recalculation of child support to address non-means-tested benefits payable to the child.
Issues:
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by terminating the shared parenting plan and naming Mother residential parent | Termination was extreme and based on relatively minor incidents (temper/football/mask dispute); shared parenting should have been preserved or only modified | Shared parenting broke down; parents could not agree on schooling and other issues; child's best interest favors Mother | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; credible evidence supported termination and designation of Mother as residential parent |
| Whether the GAL’s testimony and written report should have been excluded for noncompliance with Sup.R. 48 | GAL failed to interview several relevant persons and report was brief/deficient; noncompliance warranted exclusion | GAL conducted an investigation, met the parties, visited homes, testified and was cross-examined; report admissible and weight is for the court | Affirmed: Rules of Superintendence noncompliance is not generally reversible error; GAL’s report/testimony admissible and weighed by the court |
| Whether the court erred in treating Social Security/military benefits payable for the child as income to Mother instead of deducting them from Father’s support obligation | Court misapplied R.C. 3119.05(O); non-means-tested benefits to the child should offset parent's support obligation | Court redirected benefits to Mother but conceded recalculation may be necessary | Reversed in part and remanded: parties conceded remand appropriate to determine benefit amount and recalculate support per statute |
Key Cases Cited
- The opinion primarily cites Ohio appellate decisions and local precedents (e.g., In re A.D.; Bristow v. Bristow; Chaney v. Chaney; Adkins v. Adkins; Seng v. Seng; Ruble v. Ruble; Manis v. Manis; In re J.S.; In re B.J.; In re E.H.).
- None of those cited authorities in the opinion are provided with official reporter citations in this opinion; accordingly, no authorities with official reporter citations are listed here per instruction.