Hoying v. Hoying, 2022 Ohio 2515

Parties divorced in 2010; a 2013 agreed order made father (Jeff) residential parent for the four youngest children, including L.H., then age 8.
Beginning in 2019–2020, L.H. (then a teenager) exhibited severe mental-health problems (suicidal ideation, hospitalization, PTSD/depression diagnosis) and repeatedly reported inappropriate touching by Jeff.
Mother (Pam) filed an ex parte motion in Jan. 2020 after a disclosure; temporary custody was transferred to Pam and parenting time for Jeff was suspended or supervised at various times.
A court-appointed psychologist (Dr. Harris), GAL, therapists, school officials, siblings, and police testified at a final hearing; the magistrate recommended designating Pam residential parent and supervised visitation for Jeff.
Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, ordered Jeff to pay child support (using parents’ financial disclosures), and Jeff appealed, arguing (1) no proper change of circumstances/best-interest finding and (2) court improperly established child support sua sponte.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pam)	Defendant's Argument (Jeff)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying residential parent (R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a))	L.H. experienced a substantial change (age, loss of siblings in home, new household moves, and significant mental-health decline since 2013) making modification necessary and in the child's best interest	The changes cited were mere passage of time or irrelevant; some facts pertained to the non-residential parent; Dr. Harris favored father; no substantial change occurred	Affirmed. Court found a material change of circumstances (notably L.H.'s mental-health deterioration and developmental stage) and that placing L.H. with Pam served her best interest; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction / erred by establishing child support sua sponte	Pam’s custody motion expressly requested child support and invoked the court’s continuing jurisdiction; Jeff had notice and opportunities to submit financials but failed to comply	Court lacked jurisdiction to impose child support sua sponte	Affirmed. Court had continuing jurisdiction over custody and related support; Pam requested support, the court ordered affidavits and used available financial documents; Jeff had notice and failed to comply

In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (1992) (trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to modify custody)
Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999) (R.C. 3109.04 governs allocation of parental rights and modification procedure)
Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (2007) (residential parent retained unless modification is in child's best interest and a statutory factor applies)
Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (custody-modification reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (change in circumstances must be substantial; trial judge has wide latitude)
Loetz v. Loetz, 63 Ohio St.2d 1 (1980) (original divorce court retains continuing jurisdiction over custody, care, and support)