Rohrbach v. Rohrbach, 2015 Ohio 4728

Michael and Stephanie Rohrbach divorced in 2012 and adopted a shared parenting plan naming both parents residential and legal custodians; the plan provided flexibility for living arrangements and deference to the children’s desires.
Michael was nominally the child-support obligor but parties agreed to deviate support to $0; oldest child emancipated in 2013; youngest child (Kali) was 16 in 2014.
Before June 2014 Kali primarily stayed with Michael during school weeks because Stephanie worked early; parents had alternating weekend time.
After Kali turned 16, got a license, and worked a summer job, she began residing primarily with Stephanie and continued to visit Michael several times per week.
Stephanie filed to modify the shared parenting plan and seek child support, alleging Kali’s full‑time residence with her and Michael’s failure to contribute to expenses created a change in circumstances and financial hardship.
The magistrate and trial court designated Stephanie the primary residential parent and ordered monthly child support from Michael; the court of appeals reversed, finding no statutory change in circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Michael)	Defendant's Argument (Stephanie)	Held
Whether a "change in circumstances" occurred under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) to permit modification of a shared‑parenting decree and designation of a new residential parent and child support	No — Kali’s decision to live with Stephanie is transient, was contemplated by the prior plan, and there was no material adverse effect on the child	Yes — Kali’s move to live full‑time with Stephanie and Michael’s alleged refusal to pay routine expenses caused financial hardship and justify modification	Reversed — Court held child’s move alone (especially when contemplated by the prior shared plan) is not a sufficient change of substance; no proof of material/adverse effect on the child or facts unknown to the court at decree time

Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (trial judge given wide latitude; change in circumstances review is for abuse of discretion)
Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (abuse of discretion standard; trial court must follow R.C. 3109.04)
Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (the requirement that the change be based on facts that arose after the decree is a high standard)
In re Brayden James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 (elements required to modify custody under R.C. 3109.04 summarized)
Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (change in circumstances means an event with a material and adverse effect on the child)