Drees v. Drees
2013 Ohio 5197
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Linda and Jeff Drees were divorced on January 20, 2010; the court adopted a jointly filed shared parenting plan for their two minor children. The older child emancipated in 2011; the dispute concerns the remaining child, Jeanna.
- On March 12, 2012, Linda moved to terminate the shared parenting plan, alleging a change of circumstances (principally Jeff’s alcohol use and noncompliance with the plan) and seeking support/insurance orders.
- A magistrate held a hearing, found no demonstrable change in circumstances and that shared parenting remained in Jeanna’s best interest, and denied the motion to terminate.
- Linda objected, arguing the magistrate failed to properly consider Jeff’s drinking and misattributed noncompliance to her; the trial court independently reviewed the record, overruled the objections, and affirmed the denial.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion: shared parenting remained in the child’s best interest and termination was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not treating evidence of Jeff’s drinking as requiring termination | Linda: Jeff’s drinking habits and plan noncompliance are a changed circumstance and render shared parenting unsafe | Jeff: Drinking presented no evidence of impairment in parenting; shared parenting remains in child’s best interest | Court: No abuse of discretion — evidence did not show drinking negatively affected care or justify terminating plan |
| Whether a change of circumstances was required before terminating a jointly filed shared parenting plan | Linda: Court should find a substantial change and terminate | Jeff: R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination when shared parenting is not in child’s best interest and does not require a change finding; alternatively, no change shown | Court: R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) applies (change finding not required); regardless, under either standard Linda failed to show termination was in child’s best interest |
| Whether the magistrate/trial court misapplied the best-interest factors (R.C. 3109.04(F)) | Linda: Magistrate minimized alcohol evidence and wrongly blamed her for non-enforcement | Jeff: Magistrate and trial court reasonably applied statutory best-interest factors; credibility findings supported | Court: Magistrate addressed statutory factors; trial court’s best-interest determination was supported by competent, credible evidence and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court should have modified residential designation rather than deny relief | Linda: Requested termination (and on appeal seeks residential parent designation) to alter parenting arrangement | Jeff: Record shows Linda did not seek a formal modification below; termination was requested but not justified | Court: Linda sought termination, not a modification; even if viewed as modification, she failed both prongs required under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 876 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio 2007) (distinguishes modification of custody from termination of shared-parenting plan and explains applicable statutory standards)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio 1997) (appellate standard: best-interest custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; trial court assesses witness credibility)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reversal)
- Kougher v. Kougher, 957 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio Ct. App.) (applies R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) to termination of shared-parenting plans and distinguishes Fisher)