Calhoun v. Calhoun, 2021 Ohio 4551

Background:

Parties divorced by dissolution in June 2018; parenting plan initially designated Kasie (mother) as residential parent and Kevin (father) had frequent weekend overnights.
April 2019 Kevin filed emergency custody and motion to reallocate after learning Kasie’s boyfriend overdosed at her apartment while the children were nearby; court granted temporary custody to Kevin pending hearing.
Three-day magistrate hearing (Sept. 2019) produced findings that Kasie’s drug use and instability had increased since the dissolution; magistrate reallocated residential custody to Kevin and set parenting time for Kasie (three weekends/month) and imputed minimum wage for child support.
Kasie objected; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, but appellate court remanded to obtain a final, appealable judgment; trial court issued final entry March 12, 2021 granting reallocation, setting visitation, and ordering child support ($156.46 + cash medical support).
Court’s factual findings emphasized Kasie’s admitted marijuana use, admitted experiment with methamphetamine, association with people involved in drugs (including an overdose in her apartment), multiple moves and relationship instability, and communication/visitation difficulties; court found a change in circumstances and that harm from changing custody was outweighed by advantages.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kevin)	Defendant's Argument (Kasie)	Held
1. Did trial court fail to conduct independent review under Civ.R.53(D)(4)(d)?	Court’s journal and statement that it considered transcript and evidence show independent review; presumption of regularity applies.	Trial court merely "rubber-stamped" magistrate and failed to make independent findings.	Court presumed independent review; adoption without detailed comments permissible; no abuse of discretion.
2. Was reallocation supported by competent, credible evidence?	Evidence of overdose incident, Kasie’s drug use admissions, instability, and children’s successful adjustment to Kevin’s home support reallocation.	No proof children were in danger; expert said no addiction; insufficient basis to change custody.	Trial court’s findings are supported by competent, credible evidence; no abuse of discretion.
3. Did court misapply legal standard for custody modification?	Applied R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii): found change in circumstances, best interest of children, and advantages outweigh harm.	Argues law required proof children were in harm’s way while in her care.	Court correctly applied statutory standard; actual proof of present harm is not required—change in circumstances and best-interest showing sufficient.
4. Did decision violate Kasie’s First Amendment free-speech rights (marijuana tattoo)?	Tattoo and statements are relevant factual evidence of attitude toward drugs and parental example.	Tattoo is protected expression and magistrate imposed moral judgment irrelevant to custody.	First Amendment not implicated by court’s consideration; the court may rely on tattoo as relevant evidence in best-interest analysis.
5. Was long-distance parenting-time order improper or harmful?	Proposed schedule is reasonable given distance and resembles prior arrangement; within court’s discretion.	Long-distance guidelines unfairly reduce mother’s relationship and lack evidentiary support.	Visitation schedule (three weekends/month plus phone contact, holidays per guidelines) is similar to prior arrangement and not an abuse of discretion.
6. Should child support be recalculated by CSEA or otherwise?	Court reasonably imputed minimum wage to Kasie given sparse earnings evidence and ordered support accordingly.	Neither party filed financial affidavits; support should be referred to CSEA for proper calculation.	Given limited income evidence, imputation of minimum wage was reasonable; court’s child support order not an abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (statutory guide for custody modification)
Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review of custody supported by competent, credible evidence)
Reynolds v. Goll, 75 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 1996) (trial court’s broad discretion in custody matters)
Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1953) (deference to trial court in custody determinations)
Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard for parenting-time allocations)
Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 1997) (abuse-of-discretion review of child support decisions)
Bey v. Rasawehr, 161 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2020) (First Amendment incorporation and free-speech principles)
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (U.S. 2002) (free speech analysis principles)
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1983) (analysis on speech content and government restriction)
Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1972) (principles against content-based government speech restrictions)