Ward v. Ward, 2017 Ohio 579

Todd Ward and Stephanie Wilson (never married) are parents of two children (born 2008 and 2011).
On February 1, 2016 the juvenile court designated Wilson residential parent and granted Ward alternating weekend parenting time, no mid-week visits, and an extended 40-day parenting time (court clarified intent later).
Ward filed a motion (April 18, 2016) seeking mid-week visitation for Tristan, confirmation of 59 total days of visitation (and clarification about the 40-day period), and permission for Tristan to join a summer baseball program.
Wilson moved to dismiss and for sanctions, arguing Ward showed no change in circumstances and misread the prior order.
The juvenile court (June 21, 2016) granted mid-week parenting time (because Ward agreed to exercise it in the children’s residence city), clarified the court intended Ward to receive 40 days (not 28), denied the baseball relief and sanctions, and explained it considered best-interest factors and communication problems when modifying the order.
Wilson appealed, contending the court failed to apply R.C. 3109.051 factors and improperly modified visitation without a change in circumstances.

Issue	Ward's Argument	Wilson's Argument	Held
Whether court must find change in circumstances before modifying visitation	Court may modify without showing change; Ward sought appropriate modification	Modification required a change in circumstances; Ward failed to show one	Modification may be granted without showing change in circumstances; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether the trial court applied R.C. 3109.051 best‑interest factors when modifying visitation	Court considered the statutory factors and welfare concerns (communication problems, feasibility)	Court failed to apply or cite R.C. 3109.051 and its factors	Court considered the factors (explicitly and by reference to prior findings); no abuse of discretion
Whether granting mid‑week visits was appropriate given distance between parents	Ward offered to exercise mid‑week time in children’s city making it feasible	Distance originally made mid‑week infeasible; modification was premature	Trial court reasonably found mid‑week feasible under Ward’s proposal and in children’s best interest
Whether court properly clarified the extended parenting‑time allotment	Ward sought clarification that he was entitled to 40 days total (not 40 plus rule 20 days)	Wilson argued Ward misinterpreted the prior order	Court clarified it intended 40 days total; clarification was proper

Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999) (modification of visitation governed by R.C. 3109.051; no change‑in‑circumstances requirement)
Kelm v. Kelm, 92 Ohio St.3d 223 (2001) (central focus of visitation/modification is the child's best interests)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (appellate review deference to trial court on visitation)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (trial court best positioned to assess witness credibility)