Emigh v. Swiger, 2016 Ohio 272

Parents Crista Emigh (now Tabor) and Shaun Swiger are the parents of E.S. (b. 2005); Crista was designated residential and custodial parent in 2009.
Father’s visitation was suspended in 2010, later modified to supervised visitation under the Safe Haven Program.
Father filed a motion for reallocation of parental rights (or shared parenting) in December 2013; mother filed for supervised visitation in February 2014.
After temporary limited visits, a bench trial was held (Oct. 29, 2014 & Jan. 26, 2015); the magistrate recommended a graduated phased-in schedule ending in unsupervised visitation.
The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision, keeping mother as residential parent but ordering progressive visitation culminating in unsupervised visits; mother appealed claiming due process violation for lack of notice that unsupervised visitation would be considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by modifying visitation to allow phased-in unsupervised visits	Emigh: She lacked actual or constructive notice that unsupervised visitation would be litigated, so due process was violated	Swiger: The motions and trial evidence put visitation generally at issue; relief for best interest was sought	Court: No error — mother’s motion and trial conduct opened the issue; father’s motion requested "other relief"; no due process violation

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (distinguishing custody from visitation rights)
Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio statutory terminology and allocation of parental rights)