Redmond v. Wade
2017 Ohio 2877
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Keri Redmond (appellant) and Adam Wade (appellee) dissolved their marriage in 2011; the dissolution incorporated a shared parenting plan that designated Redmond as residential parent.
- Redmond later relocated to Louisville, Kentucky in mid‑2015; Wade remained in Lawrence County, Ohio. Conflict over how shared parenting would operate after the move ensued.
- Wade filed (May 2015) to be designated residential parent or to modify parenting time; Redmond filed (Aug 2015) to terminate shared parenting and be sole residential parent or, alternatively, to modify parenting time.
- A magistrate terminated the shared parenting decree and designated Wade residential parent; Redmond filed objections and later retained new counsel and raised additional objections and issues about child support documentation.
- The trial court held hearings, reviewed objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, terminated the shared parenting decree under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), designated Wade residential parent, and allocated parenting time to Redmond. Redmond appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Redmond) | Defendant's Argument (Wade) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to perform independent review of the magistrate’s decision | Judge Cooper did not independently review magistrate as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) | Trial court record shows it reviewed objections, transcript, and made its own findings; presumption of regularity stands | Court: No abuse; presumption of regularity not rebutted — assignment overruled |
| Whether court erred by calculating child support without verified income documentation | Redmond: R.C. 3119.05(A) requires verified income; court and magistrate biased by not requiring verification | Wade: Parties cured the defect; appellee provided income documentation before final ruling | Court: Issue is moot because parties resolved income‑documentation; assignment overruled |
| Whether the court applied incorrect legal standard (terminate shared parenting vs. modify or apply change‑in‑circumstances) | Redmond: Decree effectively named her residential parent so court should have applied change‑in‑circumstances standard for residential‑parent modification | Wade: He requested termination; R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination upon request of one parent or court finding it not in child’s best interest | Court: Redmond waived/forfeited objection by failing to timely object; even if error, invited by parties’ pleadings and not plain error; assignment overruled |
| Whether terminating shared parenting and designating Wade residential parent was against child's best interest / abuse of discretion | Redmond: Shared parenting worked; she was primary caregiver; relocation alone does not justify termination; should have modified parenting time | Wade: Relocation (~3 hours) and disruption of child’s school, church, extended‑family ties make shared parenting impractical; termination permitted and in child’s best interest | Court: No abuse of discretion. Trial court reasonably found relocation made shared parenting impractical and substantial competent credible evidence supports designation of Wade residential parent; assignments overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1952) (trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses justifies deference on custody credibility)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (custody awards reviewed for abuse of discretion; substantial competent credible evidence required)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (primary‑caregiver status is relevant but not controlling in custody decisions)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain‑error doctrine in civil cases is narrowly confined)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion)