Bell v. Bell
2017 Ohio 1252
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Married parents, two children: Dakota (b. 2000) and Autumn (b. 2003); divorce decree (Feb. 25, 2015) incorporated a shared parenting plan.
- Shared plan designated Father primary residential parent for Dakota and required Dakota, if homeschooled, to attend Quaker Digital Academy (QDA) physical site at least three days/week for at least two hours, with specified transportation responsibilities.
- Mother moved (Aug. 21, 2015) to reallocate parental rights for Dakota, citing poor academic progress at QDA, inadequate supervision by Father, failure to facilitate visitation, and unaddressed medical issues.
- Interim magistrate order (Jan. 19, 2016) required Dakota attend QDA physical site Monday–Friday 9 a.m.–3 p.m., complete coursework, and set a contingency that failure to meet attendance/progress would result in transfer to local public high school.
- After a full hearing, the magistrate (July 14, 2016) recommended no custody change but ordered Dakota enrolled in the local public high school for 2016–2017; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision with modifications and Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Rufener (Mother) Argument | Bell (Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may order transfer from QDA to traditional public school | Transfer is necessary because Dakota remained academically behind, lacked socialization/support, and did not meaningfully progress at QDA | As residential parent, Father should control school choice; court abused discretion by forcing public school attendance | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion and could order enrollment in public school given best-interest findings and prior interim agreement/contingency |
| Whether custodial status must change for school-placement order | Not seeking custody change; seeks school placement for child’s best interest | Claims placement choice is part of residential parent’s rights absent custody modification | Court held modification of shared-parenting plan terms (school placement) is permissible without changing custody when in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (1992) (trial court retains continuing jurisdiction over custody, care, and support after divorce)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Corbett v. Corbett, 123 Ohio St. 76 (1930) (foundational rule on continuing jurisdiction in domestic relations)