Brammer v. Brammer
2013 Ohio 2843
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Vance Brammer and Shannon Brammer (née Brammer) divorced in 2006 and agreed to a shared parenting plan with equal parenting time.
- Children Hayden (b. 2000) and Keegan (b. 2003) attended River Valley District schools; school placement governed by the shared plan.
- In 2010 Shannon sought relocation to Tennessee with the children for a school-year change, proposing to be residential parent for school purposes; Vance opposed.
- The trial court initially named Shannon residential parent for the school year; this was reversed on appeal (Brammer I) who favored keeping children in Marion and naming Vance for school purposes.
- On remand, the trial court again modified the plan, naming Vance as residential parent for school purposes for the 2011-2012 year; Shannon later moved to modify and terminate the shared plan.
- A three-day hearing in 2012 considered evidence including FSC Ms. Yanka, multiple experts, and extensive exhibits; the court terminated the shared parenting plan and named Shannon the residential parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission and reliance on FSC report | Vance argues FSC report was flawed and improperly relied on as substantive fact. | Mother asserts FSC report is permissible when supplemented by live testimony and other evidence. | No reversible error; court properly weighed all evidence and did not rely exclusively on the FSC. |
| Change of circumstances threshold | Vance contends there was no substantial change in circumstances to modify custody. | Mother contends change in communication and other factors justify modification under E(1)(a) or E(2)(c). | The court correctly found a change in circumstances and/or applied E(2)(c) to terminate shared parenting in the child’s best interests. |
| Best interests and residential parent designation | Vance claims the court failed to provide Civ.R.52 findings tying best interests to evidence. | Mother asserts the court considered all F factors and overall evidence supporting Shannon as residential parent. | Court did not abuse discretion; substantial competent evidence supported Shannon as residential parent. |
| Admission of certain exhibits | Vance asserts Exhibits 41-46 were inadmissible under Evid.R. 408 and Exhibits 109-110 were improperly excluded. | Court balanced evidentiary objections; redaction and authentication issues were resolved; remaining evidence properly admitted or excluded. | No abuse of discretion; challenged exhibits were properly handled under Evid.R. 408 and authentication rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (2007) (clarifies when to apply E(1)(a) vs E(2)(c) in modification/termination)
- Logan v. Holcomb, 2013-Ohio-204 (3d Dist.) (discusses thresholds for changes and best interests in shared parenting)
- Kougher v. Kougher, 194 Ohio App.3d 703 (2011) (permits termination under E(2)(c) based on best interests)
- Beismann v. Beismann, 2008-Ohio-984 (2d Dist.) (supports best-interests framework for terminating shared parenting)
- Heiser v. Heiser, 2007-Ohio-5487 (3d Dist.) (framework for reviewing best-interests findings and weighing evidence)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (custody decisions review standard and deference to trial court)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard in custody determinations)