Hynd v. Roesch
2017 Ohio 7448
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2014; mother was designated residential parent and legal custodian of child J.R.; father awarded standard parenting time.
- Mother twice sought ex parte domestic violence civil protection orders alleging abuse of J.R.; first was later vacated and denied after hearing; father’s parenting time was temporarily restricted after the filings.
- Medical evaluation following the second incident found an elbow joint effusion but no non-accidental trauma; magistrate and trial court denied mother’s petition and findings were affirmed on separate appeal.
- Mother moved to modify parenting time (seeking further restriction); father moved to modify parental rights and responsibilities (including medical decision authority). The trial court altered the parenting-time schedule to a 2-2-5-5 rotation, appointed a parenting coordinator, and awarded father authority to make medical decisions.
- Trial court relied on a forensic psychological report recommending shared-parenting, limited schedule changes, a parent coordinator, and that father be given medical-decision authority; mother appealed specific aspects of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hynd) | Defendant's Argument (Roesch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by awarding father parenting time equal in duration to mother | Mother argued schedule improperly gives father equivalent time to residential parent | Father argued flexibility of his work, grandparents’ availability, and best interests support equalized 2-2-5-5 schedule | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; credible evidence supports changes and court reasonably rejected mother’s requested restrictions |
| Whether trial court erred by relying on psychologist but not adopting all visitation recommendations | Mother argued court ignored doctor’s visitation recommendation and thus abused discretion | Father argued court may consider but is not bound by expert recommendations and chose plan consistent with child’s best interest | Court affirmed: trial court may accept or reject parts of expert report and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding father medical-decision authority without required statutory finding of change of circumstances | Mother argued she (as residential parent) should retain medical decision authority and court failed to find required change of circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) | Father relied on psychologist’s recommendation and overall custody adjustments to justify medical authority | Court reversed and remanded as to medical-decision allocation: court failed to make the statutory threshold finding of a change in circumstances, so reallocation was unsupported |
| Whether mother’s prior use of courts and actions warranted reduced trust in her cooperation | Mother argued her petitions were made in good faith for child safety | Father argued mother’s litigation and restrictions undermined his parenting time and cooperation | Court affirmed finding that mother used legal process in ways that restricted father’s time; this supported the court’s parenting-time determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (trial must consider statutory factors and child’s best interest when modifying parenting time)
- Clyborn v. Clyborn, 93 Ohio App.3d 192 (appellate review of custody/visitation is whether competent, credible evidence supports trial court)
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (trial court must make threshold finding that a change in circumstances occurred before modifying an allocation of parental rights)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (change of circumstances must be substantial, not slight or inconsequential)