Gray v. King
2013 Ohio 3085
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- William Gray sought parenting time with his daughter and to change her surname after an eight-month-old child of a brief affair with Kelsey King.
- The child bears King's surname and Gray was listed as father on the birth certificate; Mother was the primary caregiver.
- An initial order in March 2012 required Gray to pay child support and granted limited parenting time on specific weekdays and weekends; the orders were temporary.
- In August 2012 Gray proposed a shared parenting plan and an immediate surname change; a September 2012 hearing addressed these proposals.
- Magistrate’s September 25, 2012 decision designated Mother as residential parent, denied surname change, found shared parenting impractical, and granted a phased parenting time schedule
- From September 2012 to January 7, 2015, Gray’s parenting time escalated gradually in a phased plan, culminating in standard Clermont County guidelines on January 8, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phased plan violates standard guidelines | Gray contends he should receive standard parenting time per guideline. | King argues deviation is justified by best interests and case facts. | Phased plan upheld; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether new evidence should have been considered | Gray asserts additional medical records and online post should be reviewed. | Court properly refused additional evidence under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). | Refusal to consider new evidence affirmed. |
| Whether denial of surname change was in child's best interest | Gray argued change to his surname is in child’s best interest. | Mother opposed change; evidence insufficient to show best interests supported a change. | Denial of surname change affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Otten v. Tuttle, No official reporter citation provided (12th Dist. 2009) (appellate deference for nonresidential parent visitation decisions)
- Mackowiak v. Mackowiak, 2011-Ohio-3013 (Ohio) (court may consider statutory factors in parenting time)
- Losey v. Diersing, 2013-Ohio-1108 (12th Dist. 2013) (allowing or excluding late evidence on objections)
- In re Willhite, 85 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1999) (combined surnames and best-interest analysis for name changes)
- D.W. v. T.L., 2012-Ohio-5743 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (burden on parent seeking surname change; factors for best interest)