Herron v. Herron
2021 Ohio 2223
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Joshua and Candy Herron divorced in 2015; their shared parenting plan provided joint legal custody, equal parenting time, and required Father to pay private school tuition while Mother provided health insurance.
- The parties executed a June 28, 2017 consent entry that changed parenting time to alternating weeks and made Father the primary health insurer, among other adjustments.
- Mother later filed to terminate the shared parenting plan and to be sole residential parent; Father sought modifications as well. A magistrate reduced Father’s parenting time to the court’s standard schedule, named Mother residential parent for school, made Mother the primary health insurer and selector of medical providers, ordered Father to pay child support, and gave Mother the tax dependency exemption; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- On a prior appeal this Court vacated and remanded because the trial court had not complied with R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) when modifying parenting time; on remand the trial court reconsidered and reached the same results. Father appealed again.
- Relevant contested facts included (1) the child’s disclosure that her paternal grandfather sexually touched her, (2) evidence that stepmother made negative comments about Mother, and (3) Father’s unilateral changes to the child’s medical providers after the insurance switch. The appellate court found one factual error (trial court took judicial notice of the grandfather’s conviction from another case), but held other record evidence supported the judgment and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Herron) | Defendant's Argument (Herron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by changing equal shared parenting time to the court’s standard schedule | Trial court improperly altered agreed equal time without adequate change-in-circumstances finding and inadequate best-interest analysis | Trial court applied R.C. 3109.04, considered statutory best-interest factors and evidence (molestation disclosure, communications, interference by stepmother, facilitation of parenting time) | No abuse of discretion; modification was supported by the record and best-interest analysis (law of the case barred relitigation of change-in-circumstances argument) |
| Whether the reduction in parenting time was against the manifest weight of the evidence | The facts do not support reducing Father’s time and findings are unsupported or misapplied | Credible evidence (child disclosure, counseling notes, communication failures, interference, scheduling conflicts) supports trial court’s factual findings | Not against the manifest weight; appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility findings despite one judicial-notice error |
| Whether designating Mother as residential parent for school was premature/erroneous | Not ripe because child will remain at current private school through 8th grade; designation unnecessary | Trial court permissibly exercised discretion and considered best interests; Father forfeited ripeness argument by failing to object specifically below | No abuse of discretion; argument forfeited where not raised below |
| Whether naming Mother primary insurer and primary selector of medical providers was an abuse of discretion | Father contends his insurance (Cleveland Clinic) is preferable and trial court failed to justify removing him as primary insurer | Trial court found Mother’s plan provided better coverage, and Father failed to consult Mother before changing providers as required by the parenting plan | No abuse of discretion; Father forfeited challenge to the selector-of-providers ruling and the record supports insurer designation |
| Whether trial court erred in modifying child support, denying downward deviation, and awarding tax exemption to Mother | Trial court improperly modified agreed deviation, failed to explain denial of deviation and awarding of child support and tax exemption | Trial court permissibly reexamined support after modification of parenting time; Father failed to develop legal argument and forfeited many challenge points by not asserting them below | No abuse of discretion; many arguments forfeited for lack of objection or adequate appellate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 2007) (sets out standard for reallocation of parental rights under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a))
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (law of the case doctrine)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (explains manifest-weight standard and deference to finder of fact)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (discusses standards for weighing evidence in manifest-weight analysis)