Bruns v. Green (Slip Opinion)
168 N.E.3d 396
Ohio2020Background
- Parents entered an approved shared‑parenting plan (incorporated into a shared‑parenting decree) after separation; child born 2012; plan provided joint residential and legal custody and equal parenting time.
- Within a year one parent (Green) sought full custody; both parents later moved to terminate shared parenting and to be designated sole residential parent and legal custodian.
- The juvenile court terminated the shared‑parenting plan under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) and, applying R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(d)/(A)(1), designated Bruns as sole residential parent and legal custodian based on the child’s best interest.
- Green appealed, arguing the court first had to find a change in circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) before altering the residential‑parent designation; the Tenth District affirmed.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted conflict review (contrasting the Fifth District) to decide whether termination requires a change‑in‑circumstances finding.
- The Court held that termination of a shared‑parenting decree under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) and reallocation under (E)(2)(d) requires only a best‑interest determination—not an additional change‑in‑circumstances finding; judgment affirmed. The Court declined to overrule Fisher v. Hasenjager; Justice Kennedy concurred arguing Fisher was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | Bruns' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must find a change in circumstances before designating a sole residential parent after terminating a shared‑parenting plan | Termination is a modification of the parental‑rights allocation; Fisher requires a change‑in‑circumstances finding under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) | Termination is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c)/(d); after termination the court proceeds as if no shared parenting existed and need only apply best‑interest standards | No. When a court terminates a shared‑parenting decree and reallocates custody under (E)(2)(d), it need only determine the child’s best interest; no separate change‑in‑circumstances finding is required |
| Precedential effect of Fisher v. Hasenjager | Fisher controls; requires change‑in‑circumstances for altering residential‑parent designation | Fisher was wrongly applied to termination situations; termination is distinct from modification | The Court distinguished Fisher as inapplicable here but declined to formally overrule it; Justice Kennedy concurred urging overruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (2007) (earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision holding a modification of residential‑parent designation requires a change‑in‑circumstances finding; Court here distinguishes Fisher because it concerned a modification rather than termination)
- Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318 (2001) (Ohio appellate courts must follow Ohio Supreme Court precedent)
- Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich, 128 Ohio St. 124 (1934) (syllabus rulings must be read in light of the facts and questions presented)
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (federal precedent recognizing that higher court should overrule its own prior decisions when appropriate)