Hammond v. Hammond
2019 Ohio 1219
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Grant Hammond and Brenda Larson divorced in 2012; Larson was designated the residential parent and legal custodian of their two children.
- In 2016 both parents moved; children were enrolled in Forest Hills (Larson). Hammond sought a custody modification so the oldest child could attend school nearer his residence.
- Hammond filed an emergency modification motion and requested an in-camera interview of the oldest child. A magistrate conducted an in-camera interview (Aug. 2017) and later held a multi-day hearing on whether a change in circumstances justified modification.
- The magistrate found Hammond failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances and denied the modification; the magistrate relied in part on the in-camera interview.
- Hammond objected as against the manifest weight of the evidence but did not file the full transcript (including the in-camera interview) required under Civ.R. 53; he then requested that the trial judge conduct a second in-camera interview. The trial court denied the second interview, overruled objections, and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate’s denial of Hammond’s custody-modification motion | Hammond: magistrate’s findings were against the manifest weight; evidence favored a change in circumstances warranting modification | Larson: magistrate’s factual findings stand; Hammond failed to present the full record for review | Court: Hammond failed to file the required transcript of all evidence (including in-camera interview); court must accept magistrate’s factual findings and did not abuse discretion in denying modification |
| Whether the trial court was required to conduct a second in-camera interview of the child under R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) | Hammond: statute mandates an interview upon request; a second interview was needed because events occurred after the magistrate’s interview and judge lacked the interview transcript | Larson: magistrate’s in-camera interview satisfied the statute; Civ.R. 53 permits magistrate to perform the interview and Hammond could have asked the magistrate for a supplemental interview | Court: statute does not require successive interviews; magistrate’s interview satisfied the statutory duty; Hammond failed to preserve/produce the record and did not show diligence to obtain supplemental interview, so denial was not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryan v. Bryan, 161 Ohio App.3d 454 (1st Dist. 2005) (movant must show a change in circumstances to modify custody)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (change must be substantial; trial court has wide latitude in custody determinations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728 (Ohio 1995) (review limited to abuse of discretion when factual findings are accepted)
- Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (10th Dist. 1982) (change in circumstances must be more than slight or inconsequential)