2015 Ohio 5510
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Parents share a minor child, D., born 2004; they have never been married.
- The case has a long procedural history with multiple custody disputes and contempt motions.
- Mother filed to establish father-child relationship in 2006; shared parenting plan executed in 2009.
- Case transferred to Licking County in 2011; 2012 settlement largely restored prior terms with modifications.
- Numerous hearings occurred (2012–2014); Mother sought emergency custody in April 2014 amid Father’s criminal charges.
- Trial court terminated the Shared Parenting Plan and awarded sole custody to Mother in April 2015; Father appeals on two assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of the shared parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. | Jagodzinski contends change in circumstances and best interests supported termination. | Abdul-Khaliq argues lack of sufficient evidence to support best interests finding. | Abuse of discretion; termination affirmed on record evidence. |
| Whether the denial of a new trial was proper given alleged newly discovered evidence. | Jagodzinski asserts no new trial abuse; evidence insufficient to change result. | Abdul-Khaliq claims new evidence could not change custody outcome. | No abuse of discretion; motion for new trial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (2007) (termination of shared parenting requires a change in circumstances and best interests)
- Haines v. Haines, 2015-Ohio-4299 (Ohio-2015) (abuse of discretion standard in custody modifications)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (deferential standard for custody decisions; best opportunity to observe witnesses)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion requires more than mere legal error)
- Cossin v. Holley, 5th Dist. Morrow No.2006 CA 0014, 2007–Ohio–5258 (2007) (abuse of discretion in custody rulings; deferential review)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (record omissions require presumption of regularity on appeal)
- Wozniak v. Wozniak, 90 Ohio App.3d 400 (1993) (incomplete record requires affirmance if not reviewable)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) (constitutional right to transcripts limited in permanency terminations)