In re T.G.O.
2017 Ohio 151
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Child T.G.O., born 2004; parents never married. Shared parenting decree entered July 14, 2005, designating Father as residential parent for school purposes.
- Mother moved to Morrow County in 2014 and sought modification to be designated residential parent for school purposes; Guardian ad litem appointed and an attorney-advocate was also appointed for the child.
- Juvenile court conducted an in camera interview of the 10-year-old child, held a two-day hearing, and heard testimony from both parents.
- Child repeatedly expressed a clear, sincere wish to live with Mother and attend school in Morrow County; guardian ad litem recommended Father remain the residential parent for school purposes.
- Juvenile court modified the shared parenting plan under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), naming Mother residential parent for school purposes, finding the change was in the child’s best interest.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not finding a change of circumstances and (2) the court abused its discretion in awarding Mother the designation.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a change of circumstances must be shown to modify the school-parent designation | Father: Court must find a change of circumstances before modifying school-placement parent | Mother: Modification of a term of shared parenting plan under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) does not require a change-of-circumstances finding | Court: No change-of-circumstances finding required; modification of a term is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) (affirmed) |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in naming Mother residential parent for school purposes | Father: Trial court ignored/discounted relevant testimony, showed bias, and erred in weighing factors (including child wishes and parental conduct) | Mother: Court properly considered best-interest factors, including the child’s clear wishes and parental conduct, and did not err | Court: No abuse of discretion; court properly weighed R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors, credited child’s in camera statements, and reasonably concluded change was in child’s best interest (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review of trial-court decisions)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (unreasonableness defined as lack of any sound reasoning process supporting decision)