Cochran v. Cochran, 2011 Ohio 1644

Lawrence County Common Pleas Court granted divorce in 2008, awarding shared parenting with appellee as residential parent for school purposes.
Appellant (mother) petitioned in 2009 to modify custody alleging remarriage, relocation, and that children preferred living with her.
Magistrate held that no material change in circumstance occurred and did not conduct a best-interest analysis.
Appellant objected; trial court ultimately found a change in circumstance occurred and proceeded with best-interest analysis in March 2010.
Trial court concluded modification would not be in the children's best interests, and the court maintained appellee as residential parent for school purposes.
Appellant appeals, challenging guardian ad litem omission, best-interest analysis, and evidentiary rulings; court remands for GAL appointment

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Guardian ad litem appointment needed?	Cochran argues GAL should have been appointed before child interviews.	Cochran argues no error; proceeding prudent given resources and prior interviews.	Second assignment sustained; remanded for GAL appointment and further proceedings.
Was there a sufficient change in circumstances to modify custody?	Cochran contends facts (remarriage, relocation, child desires) show change.	Cochran contends no change or not in children's best interests.	Court found a change in circumstance occurred but ultimately held modification not in best interests.
Whether trial court erred by excluding or limiting testimony	Cochran claims evidence inconsistent with prior sworn testimony should be admitted.	Cochran contends proper handling of evidentiary issues.	Not reached on appeal; issues deemed moot after GAL remand.

Papp v. James, 69 Ohio St.3d 373 (1994) (requires appointment of guardian ad litem when privately interviewing a child)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases used cautiously to ensure fairness)