Dyer v. Gomez
2022 Ohio 1127
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Parties divorced in 2006; mother was designated residential parent of two children (b. 2003 and 2005).
- Father moved the children to Pennsylvania at various times (son May 2018; daughter Feb 2019); mother later brought them back to Ohio; father filed a May 16, 2019 motion to modify parental rights and to terminate child support.
- Multi‑day evidentiary hearings (including in‑camera interviews) were held in 2019–2020; the trial court denied the 2019 modification motion (journalized July 21, 2020); appellate court ordered findings of fact and conclusions, which the trial court filed Sept. 21, 2021.
- In August 2021 a Muskingum County juvenile court released the son to the father; the father filed an emergency/2021 custody motion and the trial court granted custody to the father for the son (journalized Sept. 21, 2021).
- The Sept. 21, 2021 custody entry naming the father residential parent did not address child support; on appeal this court affirmed denial of the 2019 modification motion but reversed in part the 2021 custody entry and remanded for the trial court to address termination of the father’s child support obligation as to the son.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dyer/Gomez as applicable) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 custody modification (change of circumstances / best interest) | Gomez: children lived with him; stability/supervision improved; harm of move outweighed advantages; court should reallocate custody | Dyer: prior designation remains; moves were temporary or by agreement; behavioral issues exist in both homes; modification not in children’s best interest | Court affirmed denial of 2019 motion — trial court did not abuse discretion in finding either no dispositive change or that modification was not in children’s best interest |
| Jurisdiction / venue (UCCJEA / transfer to PA) | Gomez: Pennsylvania was the children’s home state and Ohio was an inconvenient forum; case should transfer or be dismissed in Ohio | Dyer: Ohio issued the initial custody order and mother continued to reside in Ohio; Ohio has continuing exclusive jurisdiction | Court held Ohio retained continuing jurisdiction because the mother remained an Ohio resident; transfer to Pennsylvania improper |
| Contempt motion / failure to rule on motions | Gomez: trial court failed to redress his contempt motion and other motions; denial or silence prejudicial | Dyer: trial court addressed related custody disputes, held hearings, and effectively denied contempt; no prejudice shown | Court held failure to separately journalize a contempt denial is not reversible where hearings occurred and the motion was effectively denied; issue overruled |
| 2021 custody award for son — child support termination | Gomez: after court granted him custody and designated him residential parent, child support for the son should terminate (he asked appellate court to terminate it) | Dyer: (no brief filed) but trial court omitted support findings; trial court may address support or agency can process administrative termination | Court reversed in part and remanded: it was unreasonable for the trial court to grant custody without addressing termination of the child support obligation; remand for trial court to resolve child support and related matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for custody modification; changed‑circumstances + best‑interest framework)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (1981) (final judgments cannot be reconsidered except by appropriate rules/motions)
- AAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (explanation of "abuse of discretion" and "sound reasoning process")
- Portofe v. Portofe, 153 Ohio App.3d 207 (2003) (trial court silence on a pending motion is treated as implicit denial)
- State ex rel. Gomez v. Favreau, 157 Ohio St.3d 1508 (2019) (procedural disposition of relator's original action)
- State ex rel. Gomez v. Favreau, 163 Ohio St.3d 1437 (2021) (procedural disposition of subsequent original action)