Sims v. DurantSims v. Durant
For Plaintiff-Appellee
HOLLY REGOLI
117 W. Main Street, Suite 108
Lancaster, OH 43130
JAMES A. FIELDS
Guardian ad Litem
17 West Main Street, Suite 206
Lancaster, OH 43130
For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN J. PEDEN
146 Granville Street
Gahanna, OH 432230
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appеllant Anthony James Durant, appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Juvenile Branch, of Fairfield County, Ohio, which overruled his motion to terminate the shared parеnting agreement between him and Plaintiff-appellee Jennifer Sims concerning their minor child. Appellant assigns a single error to the trial court:
{¶2} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCE HAD NOT OCCURRED AND THEREFORE DISMISSING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION TO TERMINATE THE SHARED PARENTING PLAN.”
{¶3} The record indicates the parties entered into an agreed shared parenting decree on September 15, 2005. The Plan designated aрpellee the residential parent for school purposes, but otherwise, whichever parent had physical custody of the child at the time was to be the residential parent for thаt time. The shared parenting agreement set out a schedule for the parents’ respeсtive parenting times and set child support to be paid by appellant.
{¶4} On July 21, 2006, appellant filеd a motion to terminate the shared parenting order and for an order of custody. The cоurt granted an emergency ex parte order of custody, which designated appellant the legal custodian and residential parent of the child, and granted appellee supervised visitation. On September 18, 2006, the parties entered into an agreed entry which maintained the provisions of the ex parte order but granted appellee more parenting time. Subsequеntly, the parties agreed to terminate appellant’s child support obligation at least while the motion to terminate was pending.
{¶6} Pursuant to
{¶7} Our standard of reviewing decisions of а domestic relations court is generally the abuse of discretion standard, see Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 142. The Supremе Court made the abuse of discretion standard specifically applicable to custody proceedings in Miller v. Miller (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 71. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the term abuse of discretion implies the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable, see, e.g. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217. Thus, when we apply the abuse of discretion standard, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, Pons v. State Medical Board (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 619, 621.
{¶9} We find the trial court erred in determining no change in circumstancеs had occurred. The child’s residential parent and custodian had changed from the time the parties had entered into the original shared parenting decree, as did the parties’ visitatiоn arrangement and support. The circumstances had been such for the court to grant an еmergency ex parte order which contravened the shared parenting agreement, and appellant agreed to continue the order. The order had been in effect for over a year. This can only be described as a change in circumstances.
{¶10} We find the court erred, and on remand, must make a best interest determination. On remand the trial court may reach thе same conclusion it did here if it finds although there was a change in circumstances, it would nevertheless not be in the best interest of the child to terminate the shared parenting agreement. The court must find both a change in circumstances and the best interest of the child before terminating the аgreement. Fisher, supra.
{¶11} The assignment of error is sustained.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Wise, J., and
Delaney, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
WSG:clw 1119
For the reasons stated in our acсompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Fairfield County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion. Costs to appellee.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY