2014 Ohio 3544
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- This case involves Penny Thomas appealing a trial court’s decision on the parties’ shared parenting decree for their daughter (born April 2009).
- The parties previously entered a 2010 shared parenting plan with Penny designated as residential parent for interpreting the Standard Order of Parenting Time; the plan was later modified with court approval.
- Penny moved on March 18, 2013 to terminate the shared parenting plan and designate her as residential parent and legal custodian; Benjamin moved April 8, 2010 to modify or terminate the decree.
- The magistrate, after a September 27, 2013 hearing, recommended terminating the shared parenting decree, designating Penny as residential parent, and awarding Benjamin visitation, based on a finding of changed circumstances.
- The trial court, in December 2013, independently reviewed and concluded there was no change in circumstances warranting modification, maintaining the existing shared parenting decree.
- On appeal, Penny argues the court used the wrong legal standard for termination of a shared parenting decree; the court reversed and remanded for a best-interest determination regarding continuing versus terminating shared parenting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court used the correct legal standard for termination of a shared parenting decree. | Warner argues termination is governed by Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c), not the modification standard. | Thomas contends the termination motion falls under a different standard that does not require a change in circumstances. | Issue sustained; standard misapplied, remand for best-interest analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drees v. Drees, 2013-Ohio-5197 (3d Dist. No. 10-13-04 (Ohio 2013)) (distinguishes modification vs termination standards under R.C. 3109.04(E))
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (2007-Ohio-5589 (Sup. Ct.)) (two-step analysis used for modification; inapplicable to termination of shared parenting decree)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (2002-Ohio-2842 (Sup. Ct.)) (standard of review for legal questions/appellate de novo review)