Delong v. Doster
2017 Ohio 7112
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jarrod DeLong filed for divorce in 2011; initial decree designated Ashleigh (now Doster) the residential parent of their son Logan and included the standard Ohio relocation notice. Neither party appealed that decree.
- In 2015 Ashleigh relocated from Delphos to Leipsic and filed a notice of intent to relocate; Jarrod objected and moved to modify parental rights. Mediation failed and a guardian ad litem was appointed.
- Jarrod proposed a shared parenting plan. After hearings in April 2016 the magistrate found Ashleigh in contempt for relocating and recommended shared parenting; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in January 2017.
- Ashleigh appealed, contesting (1) the finding of a change in circumstances and the award of shared parenting, (2) child-support calculations (including imputed income), and (3) the contempt finding for relocation.
- The appellate court affirmed the custody modification and child-support rulings (including imputation and termination/refund), but reversed the contempt finding because the trial court exceeded its authority in restricting her relocation after she had already moved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jarrod) | Defendant's Argument (Ashleigh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a change in circumstances justified modifying the prior custody decree | The cumulative changes (mother’s relocation, increased travel time, both parents remarried, new siblings, child’s age) justify reviewing and modifying parenting allocation | Only changes to a parent’s situation that affect the child should count; Jarrod’s remarriage/childbirth alone don’t show changed circumstances | Trial court did not abuse discretion: cumulative factors constituted a substantial change in circumstances, permitting review |
| Whether shared parenting / custody modification is in the child’s best interest | Shared plan (proposed by Jarrod) serves Logan’s best interests; guardian ad litem recommended it; parents can foster contact | Trial court mischaracterized mother’s motives and downplayed past domestic-violence reference; poor cooperation doesn’t mandate shared parenting | Trial court analyzed statutory best-interest factors (R.C. 3109.04(F)) and had competent, credible evidence to adopt shared parenting |
| Whether court properly imputed income to mother for child-support calculation | Mother voluntarily underemployed; court may impute potential income based on prior earnings and abilities | Mother lost a contract and accepted severance; imputing 2014 earnings was improper | No plain error/abuse: record supports finding mother voluntarily reduced work (stay-at-home choice) and imputing potential income near her 2014 earnings was reasonable |
| Whether mother was properly held in contempt for relocating without permission | Relocation violated the court’s mediation order and relocation notice provisions; contempt appropriate | Relocation notice in the divorce decree did not prohibit moving; statute permits a hearing to revise parenting time but does not bar relocation; court lacked authority to prevent move already completed | Contempt finding vacated: court’s post-move order restricting relocation was contrary to law; plain error required reversal of contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (custody review standard; appellate deference to trial court’s custody determinations)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (trial courts have wide latitude in custody decisions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (court may impute income for voluntarily underemployed obligor)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (evidence requirement for custody allocation)
- Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (Ohio App. 1981) (change-of-circumstances threshold for custody modification)
- Beaver v. Beaver, 143 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio App. 2001) (three-part test for modifying parental rights: change, best interest, harm vs. advantage)