Barton v. Porter
2017 Ohio 1134
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child C.P., born 2005 to Connie Barton; paternity established in 2007 and father Patrick Porter was active in the child’s life.
- Barton filed a child-support action in 2009; support was administratively set in 2010 and Barton later informed the agency she no longer required services (no arrearage pursued).
- Parents informally cooperated on parenting for years; C.P. lived with Barton and visited Porter ~2–3 days/week.
- In mid-2015 Barton filed notice of intent to relocate to Florida with her fiancé and child; Porter moved for custody or, alternatively, shared parenting and to prohibit the relocation.
- A magistrate awarded residential custody to Porter and set visitation; Barton objected. The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Barton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barton) | Defendant's Argument (Porter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proceeding was an initial allocation or a reallocation of parental rights | Barton: She was sole residential parent by statute and prior child-support entry confirmed custodial status, so court needed to find a change in circumstances before modifying custody | Porter: This was an initial allocation because there was no prior custody decree allocating rights; best-interest test applies | Court: Treated matter as an initial allocation; best-interest test applicable; assignment of error overruled |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding residential custody to Porter | Barton: Court misweighed evidence, overemphasized her relocation plans and failed to account that she testified she would not move without C.P.; custody award against weight of evidence | Porter: Emphasized risk to parent-child relationship if child moved to Florida and Porter’s established, stable role in child’s life | Court: Abuse of discretion found; reversed and remanded because court relied improperly on prospective relocation despite Barton’s testimony she would not move without C.P. |
| Whether a guardian ad litem (GAL) should have been appointed for the child | Barton: GAL was warranted given the child’s interests and testimony about fiancé’s history | Porter: No GAL requested; not required | Court: Issue waived on appeal because Barton never requested GAL at trial |
| Whether written waivers of potential conflicts regarding the magistrate were required | Barton: Counsel did not sign waivers and magistrate had prior involvement (as GAL) in fiancé’s case, creating potential conflict | Porter: Any objection should have been made at trial; parties did not timely object | Court: Issue waived for failure to raise contemporaneously at hearing; assignment of error waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (custody determinations will not be reversed if supported by competent, credible evidence)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1953) (appellate deference to trial court discretion in custody matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599 (7th Dist. 2000) (custody-review standards)
- Niskanen v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 486 (Ohio 2009) (failure to raise an argument in the trial court waives the issue on appeal)
- State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 (Ohio 1968) (contemporaneous objection rule for raising errors on appeal)