Kougher v. Kougher, 957 N.E.2d 835

Rougher and Rougher were married on July 19, 2002, with one child born during the marriage; a second child from before the marriage is under juvenile court jurisdiction and not at issue.
Tara Rougher filed for divorce on September 2, 2008; a magistrate initially designated Charles as the child’s residential parent based on his role as primary caregiver.
A separation agreement was negotiated and incorporated into the divorce decree, including a shared-parenting order.
On August 8, 2009, Charles filed a motion to terminate shared parenting (seeking complete termination, not modification of the plan).
The magistrate held there had been no change in circumstances and overruled the motion on December 9, 2009; objections were overruled on March 1, 2010.
The court of appeals ultimately sustained Charles’s assignment of error, vacated the trial court’s judgment, and remanded for a best-interests-only analysis under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of a shared-parenting decree requires a change in circumstances under the statute.	Rougher contends Fisher requires a change in circumstances before terminating the decree.	Rougher argues (E)(2)(c) allows termination based on best interests without a change-in-circumstances finding.	Yes; the trial court should apply the best-interests standard under E(2)(c) without requiring a change in circumstances.

Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (2007) (established different standards for modification vs. termination; plan vs. decree distinction; change-in-circumstances not required for termination under E(2)(c))
Surgenavic v. Surgenavic, 2009-Ohio-1028 (Ohio 7th Dist.) (applied Fisher to termination context; held E(2)(c) not applicable in certain terminations but later observations distill her analysis)
In re Illig, 2009-Ohio-916 (Ohio 3d Dist.) (recognizes Fisher-based framework; supports applying change-in-circumstances to modification of residential designation, not plan-only changes)
Beismann v. Beismann, 2008-Ohio-984 (Ohio 2d Dist.) (cited for application of E(2)(c) in termination contexts; notes distinctions from Fisher)
Posey v. Posey, 2008-Ohio-536 (Ohio 4th Dist.) (cited regarding termination of shared-parenting plan context and change-in-circumstances)
Francis v. McDermott, 2009-Ohio-4323 (Ohio 2d Dist.) (discusses termination/plan vs. decree framework in termination analyses)
Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2009-Ohio-2201 (Ohio 12th Dist.) (addressed termination context under E(2)(c) in termination cases)