Schoolcraft v. Markel
2020 Ohio 3512
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Parties divorced in 2011; father (Schoolcraft) was designated the residential parent for two children.
- The younger child was 4 at the time of the decree and 13 at the time of the motion.
- Mother (Markel) filed a motion to reallocate parental rights for the younger child on August 14, 2019.
- Mother submitted an affidavit and testified that the child had consistently expressed a desire to live with her; the guardian ad litem reported the child said she wanted to live with mother.
- The trial court denied the motion (Jan. 16, 2020), ruling there was no change in circumstances and therefore it could not consider the child’s wishes as part of a best-interest analysis.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the child’s expressed preference from its change-in-circumstances analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schoolcraft) | Defendant's Argument (Markel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child’s expressed preference and advancing age constitute a change in circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) | Child’s stated preference alone does not constitute a change in circumstances; no substantial change occurred | Child’s maturation plus consistent expression of desire to live with mother constitutes a material change warranting further inquiry | Court: Trial court erred by not considering the child’s wishes in the change-in-circumstances analysis; reversed and remanded |
| Whether a change of circumstances was established so the court could examine the child’s best interest | No change, so best-interest inquiry not triggered | The alleged changes (age, preference, surrounding events) require evaluation of best interest | Premature on remand; appellate court directed trial court to first consider child’s wishes as part of change analysis |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the requested modification is in the child’s best interest and whether benefits outweigh harm | No modification needed; therefore no best-interest inquiry | Evidence (including GAL and child statements) supported weighing best-interest factors in favor of mother | Premature on remand; trial court must revisit after properly assessing change of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (10th Dist.) (defines change in circumstances as an event with material and adverse effect on child)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (change must be substantial, not slight or inconsequential)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate reversal for abuse of discretion requires decision to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- Perz v. Perz, 85 Ohio App.3d 374 (6th Dist.) (child’s sufficient reasoning/maturation can justify further inquiry into best interest)