In re M.P.
2012 Ohio 2334
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Pamela and Rodney P. are M.P.'s parents; Pamela was designated residential parent in 2010 with Rodney's parenting time.
- A relocation notice provision required notice and potential hearing if a parent plans to move to a different residence.
- Pamela filed a Notice of Intent to Relocate to Florida in April 2011; Guardian ad Litem appointed in custody proceedings.
- Magistrate recommended Pamela retain custody; GAL supported Pamela; Rodney objected.
- Juvenile court found a change in circumstances since the prior decree due to Pamela's move and awarded Rodney residential custody.
- On appeal, the court held that a mere intent to relocate does not constitute a change of circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and reversed the custody modification; the other issues were deemed moot or not reached on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a change of circumstances supporting modification | Pamela | Rodney | Yes, change did not arise from mere intent to relocate; Masters requires actual move |
Key Cases Cited
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard; defines unreasonable decisions)
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83 (1994) (actual move required for modification; relocation notices alone insufficient)
- DeVall v. Schooley, 5th Dist No. CT 2006-0062 (2007) (imminent relocation with substantial steps may implicate change of circumstances)