In re R.L.S.
2014 Ohio 3294
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mother (Keri Shields) is residential parent and legal custodian of daughter R.L.S.; parents never married. Father (John Appel) lives in Indiana with his blended family. 2007 Agreed Entry made Mother residential parent and prohibited permanently removing child from Ohio without court approval or other parent's written consent.
- In May 2013 Mother filed notice of intent to relocate R.L.S. to North Carolina; Father moved to modify parenting time and opposed relocation (also sought change of custody).
- Juvenile court conducted an in‑camera interview of the child and held a hearing. The court denied Mother's request to relocate, finding relocation not in the child’s best interest under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).
- The court granted Father’s motion to modify parenting time from a Basic I schedule to a Basic II schedule, concluding the modification was in the child’s best interest under R.C. 3109.051(D).
- Mother appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) court improperly prevented relocation by residential parent; (2) court applied wrong standard when modifying parenting time (should have required change of circumstances); (3) court erred in disregarding the child’s wishes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the court could prevent Mother from relocating child out of state | Mother: As residential parent she may relocate; at most court may revise parenting time under R.C. 3109.051 | Father: 2007 Agreed Entry bars permanent removal without court approval; court may deny relocation if not in child’s best interest | Court: Agreed Entry limited relocation; court properly used R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best‑interest analysis and denied relocation |
| 2. Whether court needed a "change of circumstances" before modifying parenting time | Mother: R.C. 3109.04(E) requires change of circumstances before modification; relocation did not constitute such change | Father: Modifying parenting time is governed by R.C. 3109.051(D), not the change‑of‑circumstances rule for custody | Court: No change‑of‑circumstances required for parenting‑time modifications; court properly applied best‑interest factors under R.C. 3109.051(D) |
| 3. Whether the court erred by disregarding the child’s stated wish to relocate | Mother: Court should consider child’s wishes if competent after in‑camera interview | Father: Child’s wishes are only one factor and child may lack reasoning ability to appreciate consequences | Court: Trial judge questioned child’s reasoning ability and therefore properly declined to rely on her wishes; even if competent, wishes are not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1999) (distinguishes custody modifications from parenting‑time modifications and directs best‑interest analysis under R.C. 3109.051 for visitation changes)