2019 Ohio 4506
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Jordan (father) and Corie (mother) married in 2010; child born March 2015. Father worked 12-hour shifts as a security officer at a nuclear plant; parents separated in mid-2016 and father filed for divorce in December 2016.
- A temporary parenting agreement (Feb. 2017) made mother the temporary residential parent; father had alternating weekend parenting time.
- Mother filed a notice of relocation to Georgia on October 3, 2017 but withdrew that notice about one month after trial; the GAL recommended mother remain residential parent.
- The magistrate (May 2, 2018) and the trial court (Oct. 16, 2018) instead designated father the residential parent and legal custodian, finding mother had unreasonably limited/interfered with father’s parenting time and had acted without adequately consulting father about relocation.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion: she did not deny court-ordered parenting time, she withdrew the relocation notice (so reliance on it was improper), and the court should have held an additional hearing on the withdrawal.
- The Sixth District affirmed, concluding the court’s custody decision was supported by substantial, competent evidence and the court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding residential custody to father (best-interest analysis) | Mother: Court ignored that she was primary caregiver and GAL recommended she be residential parent; award to father is an abuse of discretion. | Father: Record shows mother limited father’s time, planned relocation without consulting father, and father has stable home/support—best-interest factors favor father. | Affirmed: Court did independent review and found substantial credible evidence supporting designation of father as residential parent under R.C. 3109.04. |
| Whether court should have held an additional hearing after mother withdrew relocation notice | Mother: Withdrawal was new evidence that could not have been presented earlier; court abused discretion by refusing a hearing. | Father: Withdrawal was a one-line filing; mother did not show she exercised reasonable diligence or that additional evidence was necessary. | Denied: Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) hearing not required where objecting party failed to show she could not have produced evidence earlier or otherwise meet the rule’s burden. |
| Whether reliance on mother’s notice of relocation (filed day before trial) was improper after she later withdrew it | Mother: Withdrawal and continued Ohio residency make reliance on the earlier notice unreasonable. | Father: Court considered relocation along with other evidence (parenting-time interference, father’s stability); any error about timing of notice was not prejudicial. | Rejected: Court noted relocation evidence among other factors; record contains independent support for custody decision, so reliance on the notice (and findings about mother’s conduct) was not reversible error. |
| Whether findings that mother interfered with/limited father’s parenting time were unsupported | Mother: She never denied court-ordered parenting time; any early supervisory conditions were justifiable when parties first separated. | Father: Mother limited additional requested time, required supervised visits early on, and imposed unwarranted restrictions after moving—evidence supports interference. | Affirmed: Magistrate and trial court findings that mother unreasonably limited/interfered with father’s parenting time are supported by competent evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (appellate review of custody for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1952) (trial court’s superior opportunity to observe witnesses in custody matters)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (custody awards supported by substantial, credible evidence will not be reversed)