Background - Parties dissolved marriage in 2012 and entered a court‑approved shared parenting plan for two sons (ages 4 and 6 at decree). The plan provided equal parental rights and a detailed, reciprocal expense‑sharing accounting system and set parenting time for father (Gessner) on weekdays and alternating weekends. - In 2016 Gessner sought administrative child‑support review and filed to amend the parenting plan to add regular overnight parenting during school weeks, expanded alternate‑weekend time, and additional summer time. - A guardian ad litem interviewed the children and reported both wanted more time with their father; court appointed a GAL and held a magistrate hearing in September 2016. - The magistrate found a change of circumstances and that increased parenting time was in the children’s best interest; recommended modest overnight and summer expansions and imposition of child support. - Trial court adopted and modestly modified the magistrate’s recommendations, reduced Gessner’s proposed support, and Thomas (defendant/appellant) appealed only the parenting‑time modification rulings. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gessner) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held | |---|---:|---|---:| | Whether a showing of a change of circumstances is required to modify parenting time under a shared‑parenting plan | Modification of parenting time is a term of the parenting plan and may be changed under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) on a best‑interest showing only | A change of circumstances is required (R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)); mere passage of time or children aging is insufficient | Court held change‑of‑circumstances not required for parenting‑time modifications; evaluate under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) best‑interest standard | | If required, whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding a change of circumstances | There were meaningful changes since decree: children matured, expressed wishes to see father more, father had exercised additional parenting time | Thomas argued only aging occurred and the existing schedule worked well; disputed children’s wishes and consistency | Court found, even if required, record supported a change of substance (maturity, children’s preferences, shared interests) — no abuse of discretion | | Whether the modification was in the children’s best interest | Increased, but minimal, overnight and summer time served children’s wishes and preserved stability; parents live near each other and father is near school | Thomas emphasized children were doing well, homework/bedtime concerns, occasional reluctance of younger child to visit father | Court applied R.C. 3109.04(F) factors (wishes of children, relationships, adjustment, parental conduct) and concluded modest increase was in best interest — no abuse of discretion | | Standard of review for these determinations | N/A (appellant challenging findings) | N/A | Abuse of discretion standard; trial court’s credibility findings entitled to deference | ### Key Cases Cited Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 2007) (distinguishes modification of shared‑parenting plan “terms” from modification of decree designating residential parent; designation requires change‑of‑circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)) Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (change in circumstances must be a change of substance, not slight or inconsequential) Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best positioned to weigh witness credibility) AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (abuse‑of‑discretion described as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable decision)