2019 Ohio 2642
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother (A.N.W. nka A.N.G.) filed notice she intended to marry an Air Force member stationed in Okinawa and move with the parties’ 11‑year‑old daughter, C.R.W., to Japan in late 2018; mother was the residential parent.
- Father (B.A.R.) moved to reallocate parental rights, arguing the relocation was a change in circumstances and that the child’s best interests required she remain in Ohio with him.
- A magistrate modified parenting time to accommodate the move (holidays/alternate breaks; father allowed to visit in Japan with notice); that order was not appealed.
- At a subsequent hearing on father’s motion to reallocate custody, the magistrate found a change in circumstances (based on child’s age) but summarily concluded custody should remain with mother without applying the R.C. 3109.04(F) best‑interest factors or analyzing harms/benefits of changing the residential parent.
- No guardian ad litem, no background investigation of mother’s new husband, and no expert testimony about the child’s adjustment to living in Japan were offered; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (B.A.R.) | Defendant's Argument (A.N.G.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s planned relocation to Okinawa constitutes a "change in circumstances" under R.C. 3109.04 | Relocation to another continent, living with a man she barely knows, removal from child’s support network, and demanding travel schedule transcend normal relocation adjustments | Relocation alone is not necessarily a change; child wants to move and mother has plans for school/employment in Japan | Court: Mother’s relocation to Japan (and surrounding circumstances) is a change in circumstances; trial court erred to treat child’s age alone as the change |
| Whether the trial court adequately analyzed best‑interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F) before denying reallocation | Trial court failed to apply or even mention R.C. 3109.04(F); did not assess harm/benefit of changing residential parent | Mother relied on child’s wishes and presented plans for school/employment; presumption favors retaining residential parent | Court: Trial court acted arbitrarily by not analyzing the statutory best‑interest factors or the harm/benefit balance; remand required for detailed consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (age alone is insufficient to show a change in circumstances and trial courts get wide latitude in custody matters)
- Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (rebuttable presumption favoring retention of the prior residential parent; definition of "change in circumstances")
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court’s credibility findings entitled to deference)