Thomas v. Thomas, 2023 Ohio 3941

Trisha and Edward Thomas divorced in 2018; the judgment incorporated a shared parenting plan for their two sons (born 2009 and 2011).
Trisha (wants to relocate to North Dakota with her new partner and their infant) is the party seeking termination of the shared parenting plan and designation as sole residential parent; Edward opposed and sought sole custody himself.
The shared parenting schedule gives Edward some weekday evenings and two consecutive weekend overnights per month; both children are doing well in school and activities.
Evidence at the magistrate hearing: Trisha testified Edward fails to enforce dietary rules, is lax about video games and chores, attends few therapy sessions and sometimes misses school events; Edward admitted limited communication but said he participates when able and lets Trisha take the lead.
The guardian ad litem recommended denying both motions and retaining the shared plan; the magistrate interviewed the children in camera and found stability in the current arrangement.
The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and denied Trisha’s motion to terminate the shared parenting plan; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether shared parenting should be terminated because parents cannot cooperate (R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(a))	Trisha: parties fail to cooperate/communicate on diet, discipline, therapy, and activities, harming the children; shared parenting should be ended	Edward: disputes many specifics, acknowledged limited communication but allows Trisha to be primary decision-maker and maintains that arrangement works	Court: Affirmed magistrate — although cooperation is imperfect, record supports that the dynamic (Trisha as primary decision-maker) serves children’s best interest; no abuse of discretion in denying termination
Whether relocation to North Dakota justifies changing custody	Trisha: move would provide family support and better income; relocation and sole custody would benefit children	Edward: opposed; magistrate unconvinced relocation would serve children’s best interest given stability and community ties	Held: Court agreed with magistrate that the relocation benefits Trisha more than the children and that maintaining current shared plan preserves children’s stability

Seasons Coal Co., 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial judge is best positioned to assess witness credibility)
Clyborn v. Clyborn, 93 Ohio App.3d 192 (3d Dist. 1994) (appellate review asks whether competent, credible evidence supports trial court findings)