Ross v. Ross
2012 Ohio 2175
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Father Steven Ross and Renee Ross divorced in 2005; Mother was residential parent and legal custodian; Father was prohibited from visitation due to sexual offender status.
- Father was convicted in 2004 for disseminating matter harmful to juveniles and voyeurism; victim was his eleven-year-old step-daughter.
- Children are B.R. (born 2000) and N.R. (born 2002).
- In February 2011, Mother notified intent to relocate to Tennessee with the children; Father opposed and sought a hearing to modify parenting time.
- Hearing occurred August 5, 2011; Mother did not attend but submitted a letter; court denied modification and allowed relocation with supervised Tennessee visits and weekly calls.
- Father appealed challenging relocation and visitation denial; appellate court sustained the trial court’s decision to permit relocation with supervised visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation of the children was properly permitted | Ross argues the court failed to properly apply RC 3109.051(D) factors. | Mother contends relocation is permissible and within the court's discretion with appropriate visitation adjustments. | No error; relocation permitted with supervised visits in Tennessee. |
| Whether the denial of increased visitation was an abuse of discretion | Ross contends court should grant more or unsupervised visitation. | Mother supports supervised visitation; court weighed factors and found supervised visits appropriate. | No abuse of discretion; monthly supervised visits and weekly calls upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrold v. Collier, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0010, 2006-Ohio-5634 (9th Dist. 2006) (visitation appeals require abuse of discretion review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983) (Ohio Supreme Court 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Szymczak v. Tanner, 9th Dist. No. 10CA0101-M, 2012-Ohio-540 (9th Dist. 2012) (competent credible evidence standard for factual findings)
- Morrow v. Becker, 9th Dist. No. 07CA0054-M, 2008-Ohio-155 (9th Dist. 2008) (trial court must weigh RC 3109.051(D) factors)
- Harris v. Harris, 9th Dist. No. 06CA009056, 2007-Ohio-3123 (9th Dist. 2007) (statute does not authorize prohibition of relocation)
- Bonner v. Deselm- Bonner, 2011-Ohio-2348 (5th Dist. 2011) (explicit reference to RC 3109.051(D) factors not required if record shows consideration)
- Bentley v. Rojas, 9th Dist. No. 10CA009776, 2010-Ohio-6243 (9th Dist. 2010) (need for findings of fact and conclusions of law on factors)