Souders v. Souders, 2022 Ohio 1953

2014 dissolution incorporated shared-parenting; in 2016 the court terminated shared parenting and designated Tiffany as residential parent and legal custodian, finding Tiffany stable and expressing concerns about Stephen’s unresolved mental-health issues.
The 2016 parenting-time order gave Stephen nonresidential parenting time but conditioned it on his continued residence in his parents’ home and required a mental‑health assessment be obtained and presented to the court before seeking any modification.
In July 2021 Stephen moved to reallocate parental rights (seeking equal custody), to live in northern Kentucky with the children, and to obtain equal parenting time; his motion primarily alleged improvements in his own health, employment, and finances.
Stephen submitted a December 2020 VA medical/psych pharmacy assessment indicating medication review and no routine psychiatry follow-up, which he argued satisfied the court’s mental‑health assessment requirement.
The trial court denied reallocation because Stephen did not allege a change in the circumstances of the children or the residential parent as required by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), and denied parenting-time modification because he had not submitted the required mental‑health assessment in the form the court required.
This court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion; two additional procedural claims were overruled because the alleged errors were not shown in the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tiffany)	Defendant's Argument (Stephen)	Held
Whether the court erred denying reallocation of parental rights under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)	No change in circumstances of the children or residential parent had been shown; keep existing allocation	Stephen claimed changed circumstances (his improved stability and, he argued, Tiffany’s move) justified reallocation	Denied — Stephen failed to allege a material change in the children’s or residential parent’s circumstances, so reallocation was precluded; no abuse of discretion
Whether the court erred denying modification of parenting time because Stephen had submitted a mental‑health assessment	The court was correct to require a mental‑health assessment and none compliant was submitted	Stephen contended the VA psych/medication record sufficed as the required mental‑health assessment	Denied — trial court reasonably concluded the VA medication-review record was not the required mental‑health assessment; denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether the court committed procedural error (failure to correct sua sponte / insufficient service)	Court’s record did not show such errors; appellate review limited to the record	Stephen argued the court was notified and that service was deficient (offering an envelope image)	Overruled — claimed errors not demonstrated in the record; appellate court may not rely on materials outside the record

Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (change‑in‑circumstances requirement and standard for custody reallocation)
In re James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 (2007) (statute requires both post‑decree change in circumstances and a finding that modification is in the child’s best interest)
Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999) (trial courts may impose conditions on nonresidential parenting time)
Bryan v. Bryan, 161 Ohio App.3d 454 (2005) (moving party must initially demonstrate a change in circumstances)
Wyss v. Wyss, 3 Ohio App.3d 412 (1982) (change‑in‑circumstances rule protects children from repeated custody challenges)
In re N.W.F., 147 N.E.3d 86 (2019) (relocation of residential parent alone does not automatically satisfy change‑in‑circumstances requirement)
State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (appellate courts cannot consider matters outside the trial record)
State v. Tekulve, 188 Ohio App.3d 792 (2010) (same principle regarding reliance on the appellate record)