Williamson v. Williamson
2017 Ohio 1082
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Stacy Anne Williamson (mother, residential parent) and Mark Williamson (father, nonresidential) divorced in 2012; mother was designated residential parent and father granted expanded parenting time.
- Mother filed notice (March 2016) of intent to relocate from Richmond, Ohio to Sterling, Michigan (≈400 miles) for employment; father objected and moved to reallocate custody to him.
- Magistrate found a change in circumstances and recommended reallocation of custody to father if mother moved; trial court sustained mother’s objections after independent review and denied reallocation.
- Trial court found no change in circumstances (no actual harm shown) and alternatively held that reallocating custody would not be in the children’s best interest.
- Case appealed; Seventh District affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for reallocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellee Stacey) | Defendant's Argument (Appellant Mark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s proposed out-of-state relocation constitutes a "change in circumstances" under R.C. 3109.04 sufficient to permit reallocation of parental rights | Relocation is for stable employment, maintains income and services for the children, and does not cause more than normal adjustment issues | Relocation will materially and adversely affect the children’s relationship with father and paternal family, and is intended to limit father’s visitation | No — trial court did not abuse discretion: relocation alone did not show harm beyond normal adjustment; no change in circumstances found |
| Whether the magistrate’s factual findings (credibility determinations) should be given deference because the magistrate heard witnesses | Testimony and facts support mother’s explanation and employment-based move; trial court may independently review the record | Magistrate observed witnesses and credibility; trial court should defer to magistrate | Court held trial court may independently review and is the ultimate fact finder; deference to magistrate not dispositive |
| Whether mother’s move was motivated to limit father’s visitation and whether that would constitute a change in circumstances | Move was for employment and family support; mother agreed to reasonable visitation and the record had no history of interference | Summer visitation proposals and transportation positions show intent to limit visitation | Court found no competent evidence of intent to hinder visitation; mother’s actions did not indicate interference |
| If a change existed, whether reallocation would be in the children’s best interest under R.C. 3109.04(F) | Continued access to maternal family, equivalent employment and school-based services in Michigan; children bonded to both sides | Father’s active role, proximity to paternal family, involvement in extracurriculars would be diminished | Trial court’s alternative best-interest analysis supported denying reallocation; court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (standard for change of circumstances and custody modification review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (trial court custody determinations entitled to deference when supported by competent, credible evidence)
- Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599 (7th Dist. 2000) (relocation may amount to change in circumstances where primary motive is to restrict noncustodial parent’s visitation)
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1994) (notice of intent to relocate alone is insufficient to show change in circumstances)