Hartley v. Hartley
2017 Ohio 8494
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shawn and Jennifer Hartley divorced in 2003 and had two children: S.H. (1998) and M.H. (2000). Custody allocations changed over time; in February 2014 Shawn was designated residential parent and legal custodian of M.H.
- Jennifer moved in August 2016 to reallocate legal custody of M.H. to her; a magistrate heard testimony and conducted an in-camera interview of M.H. (then 16).
- The magistrate found Shawn repeatedly failed to facilitate court-ordered parenting time and refused to comply with a counseling order, concluding those failures constituted a substantial change in circumstances and awarding Jennifer legal custody.
- The trial court overruled Shawn’s objections, independently reviewed the record, found a substantial change in circumstances (interference with visitation), and held the change of custody was in M.H.’s best interest; it made the change effective March 31, 2017.
- Shawn also filed a February 2016 motion to modify child support; after the custody transfer the trial court found that motion moot. Shawn appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "change in circumstances" occurred under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) | Jennifer: Shawn’s repeated interference with court-ordered parenting time and refusal to cooperate with counseling after the prior custody decree created a substantial change. | Shawn: Alleged problems (refusal to facilitate parenting time; counseling noncompliance) predated the "prior decree," so no new change occurred. | Court: The relevant prior decree is the 2014 custody order; Shawn’s conduct after that date supported a finding of changed circumstances. |
| Whether Shawn failed to facilitate Jennifer’s parenting time | Jennifer: Shawn actively impeded visitation (e.g., returning child late, removing child from mother’s home, child refusing to get out of car). | Shawn: Child refused to visit; he could not force her and made some attempts to facilitate visits. | Court: Trial court credited testimony showing extended interference; reasonable to conclude Shawn failed to facilitate visitation. |
| Whether reallocation of custody was in child’s best interest | Jennifer: Awarding custody would restore mother-daughter relationship and ensure continued contact; benefits outweigh minimal disruption. | Shawn: M.H. opposed living with Jennifer, threatened to run away or graduate early; custody change could disrupt school, college classes, and work. | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence (including in-camera interview) supported that best-interest factors favored transfer to mother and that harms were negligible. |
| Whether Shawn’s February 2016 motion to modify child support was moot | Jennifer/trial court: Because custody was later awarded to Jennifer effective March 31, 2017, the support-motion issue was rendered moot. | Shawn: Motion sought child support covering period before custody change and thus was not entirely moot. | Court: Motion, on its face, sought modification of a nonexistent obligation tied to emancipation; trial court reasonably found the motion moot given custody reallocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beekman v. Beekman, 96 Ohio App.3d 783 (Ohio Ct. App.) (custodial parent is presumed to promote both parents' relationships; interference with visitation undermines custodial presumptions)