Delong v. Doster
2017 Ohio 7112
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jarrod DeLong (plaintiff/appellee) and Ashleigh DeLong (defendant/appellant, now Doster) divorced in 2012; Ashleigh was designated residential parent of their child, Logan.
- Ashleigh filed notice of intent to relocate in 2015 and moved to Leipsic with Logan before the court resolved objections; Jarrod filed to modify parental rights and later proposed a shared parenting plan.
- Trial court magistrate found Ashleigh in contempt for relocating, recommended shared parenting, and imputed income to Ashleigh for child-support purposes; the trial court adopted those findings and the shared parenting plan in January 2017.
- Ashleigh appealed, raising seven assignments of error challenging (inter alia) the change-of-circumstances finding, best-interest analysis for shared parenting, imputation of income, termination/refund of prior child support, and the contempt finding for relocation.
- The appellate court affirmed the custody modification, shared parenting adoption, and child-support determinations, but reversed and vacated the contempt finding because the court lacked authority to prohibit the relocation given the decree’s relocation notice language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jarrod) | Defendant's Argument (Ashleigh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a substantial change in circumstances warranted modifying parental rights | Change (mother’s move, new family dynamics, travel time, child’s age) justified review and modification | Change was insufficient or related mainly to Jarrod, not the residential parent or child | Court: Affirmed change-of-circumstances (trial court did not abuse discretion) |
| Whether shared parenting serves child's best interest under R.C. 3109.04(F) | Shared parenting recommended by GAL, parties can co-parent, child benefits from time with both parents | Ashleigh argued hostility, minimized GAL recommendation and raised safety/domestic violence concerns | Court: Adopted shared parenting; competent, credible evidence supported best-interest finding |
| Whether trial court properly imputed income to Ashleigh for support | Jarrod supported imputing Ashleigh’s earning capacity (used prior earnings) | Ashleigh argued her unemployment was due to lost contract and pregnancy, so imputing 2014 earnings was improper | Court: Imputation appropriate; record supported finding of voluntary underemployment and use of 2014-level income as reasonable |
| Whether contempt for relocating was proper | Jarrod argued relocation violated court processes and warranted contempt | Ashleigh argued she complied with notice requirements and the court lacked authority to bar relocation | Court: Reversed contempt; relocation restriction journalized after move was contrary to law — plain error warranted vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (custody modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion; trial court has wide latitude based on credibility and demeanor)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (trial court’s discretion in custody matters and deference to trial factfinder)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard when custody allocation lacks substantial, credible evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion as unreasonable or unconscionable)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128 (Ohio 1989) (appellate courts should not substitute judgment for trial court in custody cases)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (voluntary underemployment is a factual determination for imputing income)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals is narrowly applied)