D.C. v. M.M., 2021 Ohio 3851

Child A.C. born 2013 to unwed parents M.M. (mother/appellant) and D.C. (father/appellee); a shared parenting plan was entered in 2015 with alternating full weeks (Sunday–Sunday).
In July 2020 M.M. moved to terminate shared parenting and be named residential parent, citing parental disagreements, D.C.’s alcohol use and license issues, and her May 2020 withholding of visitation.
D.C. filed a contempt motion alleging M.M. withheld parenting time (including a father–daughter event) and failed to communicate about the child.
A hearing was held January 13, 2021; testimony focused on school/attention issues and D.C.’s alleged alcohol misuse and license suspension.
The juvenile court (Feb. 3, 2021) terminated the shared parenting plan, named D.C. residential parent and legal custodian, found M.M. in contempt, awarded compensatory parenting time (an extra week), and assessed attorney fees and contempt costs against M.M.
M.M. appealed, arguing (1) the court misapplied R.C. 3109.04 in terminating shared parenting and (2) the court abused its discretion by finding contempt without offering purge conditions and effectively punishing her by terminating the plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (M.M.)	Defendant's Argument (D.C.)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating the shared parenting plan and naming D.C. residential parent under R.C. 3109.04	M.M.: Court overstated one denial-of-visitation incident and misweighed factors under R.C. 3109.04; purge conditions could have avoided termination	D.C.: Parties cannot cooperate; D.C. consistently honored the plan and is more likely to facilitate parenting time	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court properly considered R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) and (F)(1) factors and credibility determinations supported the change
Whether the trial court erred by finding M.M. in contempt without providing purge conditions and by "punishing" her via termination of shared parenting	M.M.: She should have been given purge conditions and the contempt finding improperly influenced termination	D.C.: Statute requires assessment of fees and allows compensatory parenting time; purge conditions not required for fees/compensatory time	Court affirmed: contempt finding was within discretion; R.C. 3109.051(K) required fee assessment and compensatory time was authorized; purge conditions were not required here

Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre, 100 Ohio App.3d 203 (3d Dist. 1994) (custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, 138 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 2013) (abuse of discretion standard applicable to contempt findings)