Mansbery v. Bach
2011 Ohio 6627
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Bach and Mansbery married in August 2005; they have two children born in 2006 and 2007.
- They lived in California after marriage and moved to Brecksville, Ohio, in summer 2008.
- Mansbery filed for legal separation in December 2008 and later for divorce.
- A three-day hearing in Sept. 2009 awarded Mansbery temporary parental rights; Bach remained in California.
- A final seven-day divorce trial in 2009–2010 led to a magistrate’s recommendation that Mansbery be the residential parent; Bach’s move to California was viewed as a personal choice compromising shared parenting unless she resided near the children.
- May 17, 2010, an Agreed Judgment Entry incorporated the magistrate’s findings; Mansbery was designated residential parent; Bach received a lump sum and Mansbery was allocated attorney fees.
- Bach moved on Aug. 26, 2010 to modify parental rights, asserting a change in circumstances due to moving to Ohio and building a home there.
- An agreed interim visitation schedule was entered in Oct. 2010, increasing Bach’s visitation during the motion pendency.
- A December 2010 magistrate recommended dismissal of Bach’s motion to modify; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) by dismissing Bach’s modification motion | Bach contends relocation to Ohio changed circumstances; Mansbery contends no substantial change. | Mansbery argues Bach’s move was only a change in her circumstances, not in the children’s or Mansbery’s. | No abuse; dismissal affirmed as threshold change not met. |
| Whether Bach was entitled to an evidentiary hearing | Bach seeks a hearing to pursue modification. | No hearing required if threshold change is not shown. | No error; hearing not required where change in circumstances was not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2007) (change in circumstances threshold for modification)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (change must be substantial, not minor)
- Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (Ohio App.3d 1982) (stability of custodial status; legislative criteria)
- Buckingham v. Buckingham, 2004-Ohio-1942 (2d Dist. 2004) (move to Ohio not change in circumstances)
- In re Schwendeman, 2007-Ohio-815 (4th Dist. 2007) (hearing not required when threshold change absent)
- Wysong v. Wysong, 2002-Ohio-562 (12th Dist. 2002) (contested custody requires threshold change)