Harrison v. Lewis
2017 Ohio 275
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents (never married) had two sons, J.H. (b.1999) and W.H. (b.2002); parties entered a shared parenting plan in 2006 and agreed in 2010 that Mother (Lewis) would have custody of both children.
- In Jan. 2014 an incident at the maternal grandmother’s house (uncle injured; W.H. allegedly showed marks) prompted Father (Harrison) to seek legal custody of W.H.; court awarded Father temporary custody and prohibited J.H. from accompanying Mother’s visits with W.H.
- Guardian ad litem and Family Court Services were appointed; extensive testimony at a 2015 hearing described J.H.’s long‑term behavioral/mental‑health diagnoses, hospitalizations, and several violent outbursts since 2010.
- Magistrate awarded custody of W.H. to Father and J.H. to Mother; trial court adopted custody split but modified visitation to award alternating weekends and one weekend per month where both children are with Mother and one with Father.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) no substantial change in circumstances since 2010, (2) exclusion of 2010 evidence was harmful, (3) award of W.H. to Father was against best interests, and (4–5) trial court erred in rejecting GAL’s recommended shared weeks and in denying Mother standard‑order visitation with W.H.
Issues
| Issue | Harrison's Argument (Plaintiff) | Lewis's Argument (Defendant/Appellant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances since the 2010 custody order | J.H.’s behavior escalated after 2010 (hospitalizations, repeated violent outbursts in W.H.’s presence), supporting modification | Parties and court knew of J.H.’s behavioral issues in 2010; no new circumstances justifying modification | Court: substantial change existed — J.H. became "bigger, stronger and more violent" post‑2010; no abuse of discretion in finding change |
| Whether excluding evidence about 2010 proceedings was harmful | Exclusion was harmless because the pivotal change was escalation after 2010, not knowledge of pre‑existing diagnoses | Exclusion prevented showing the parties already knew of J.H.’s problems in 2010, undermining the change‑of‑circumstances finding | Court: exclusion was error but harmless; proffered 2010 reports did not show the specific violent episodes relied upon for change finding |
| Whether awarding custody of W.H. to Father served W.H.’s best interests | Father provided more structure, academic oversight, counseling for W.H.; W.H. improved while with Father | Mother was primary caretaker and W.H. wished to return; separation from brother harms the children | Court: custody to Father was not an abuse of discretion — evidence supported improved stability and behavior with Father |
| Whether court erred in rejecting GAL’s recommendation for one full shared week per month and in denying Mother standard‑order visitation with W.H. | GAL recommended alternating full weeks plus noncustodial parenting time; Mother sought standard‑order visitation | Court’s ordered limited weekends and denied standard order | Court: trial court failed to state consideration of R.C. 3109.051 factors; visitation portion vacated and remanded for reconsideration under statutory factors (appeal sustained as to visitation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for appellate review of abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (change‑of‑circumstances threshold must be substantial)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (appellate standard for reviewing manifest weight/credibility and factual findings)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999) (visitation determinations must be consistent with R.C. 3109.051 and best interests)
- Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (10th Dist.) (courts should avoid frequent custody motions absent significant change)