In re E.R.P., 2012 Ohio 1053

In 2006, the parties entered a shared parenting agreement naming Father the residential parent with Mother having specified parenting time, and a schedule for holidays and other issues in Bedford, Ohio.
In August 2009, Father notified his intent to relocate to Oberlin with the children; Mother promptly sought emergency custody relief and to modify custody, which the trial court denied.
Trial spanning June 2010 to February 2011 featured Mother’s claim that Father’s move, unemployment, and parenting style harmed the children; Father testified to his move being due to a house sale and for better opportunities, and to his limited income but responsible care.
The guardian ad litem recommended that the children remain with Mother; he opined the mother’s home was less controlling and that the children were more comfortable there.
The court found no substantial change in circumstances warranting custody modification and concluded that changing custody would not serve the children’s best interests; it denied Mother’s motion to modify custody, and this ruling was appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the court ultimately affirmed, holding that the evidence did not establish a change in circumstances or a greater benefit from modification sufficient to overcome the stability of the existing arrangement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change in circumstances required for modification	Mother contends a change occurred due to pre-adolescence and the move.	Father argues the move alone does not constitute a change in circumstances.	No substantial change in circumstances established; modification not warranted.
Best interests standard and evidence	Mother asserts she provides a better environment and should be residential parent.	Father asserts his stability and involvement support maintaining status quo.	The court properly considered best-interests factors and found no basis to modify.
Weight of the evidence / manifest weight	Mother argues the record supports a different custodial outcome.	Father maintains the record supports the court’s denial.	Judgment not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Rodkey v. Rodkey, 8th Dist. No. 86884 (2006-Ohio-4373) (move alone not a change in circumstances to warrant custody modification)
Mansbery v. Bach, 8th Dist. No. 96471 (2011-Ohio-6627) (flexible standard for assessing changes in circumstances)
Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (1982) (stability policy in custody determinations)
In re B.W., 2011-Ohio-4513 (8th Dist. Nos. 96550 and 96551) (requirement that change in circumstances be supported by competent, credible evidence)
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997-Ohio-260) (change in circumstances not necessarily substantial; focus on best interests)