Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(j) requires a court allocating parental rights to consider whether either parent plans to establish a residence outside Ohio.

Gallagher v. Gallagher, Unpublished Decision (01-16-2002) · filed 2002-01-16(F)(1)(j)

In deciding whom should be awarded legal custody, the court gave great consideration to Appellee's intent to move the child out of the country, in compliance with R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(j), which requires a court to consider "whether either parent * * * is planning to establish a residence outside this state."

Section 3109.04 requires custody awards to rest on present circumstances rather than speculation about a parent’s possible future relocation.

Reinhart v. Allen · filed 2009-10-05(F)(1)(j)

An award based on future possibilities is contrary to the purpose of R.C. 3109.04, which is to award custody based on present circumstances.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(j) permits a court to consider concern about a parent moving out of state even without a definite relocation plan.

Hay v. Shafer · filed 2010-10-04(F)(1)(j)

However, the trial court did not find that she was definitely planning to relocate; it merely stated that it had serious concerns about her “intentions.” The R.C. 3109.04(F) factors are a non-exclusive list of considerations; the trial court does not necessarily have to literally match every word in every factor in order to arrive at a decision.

A parent’s plan to establish a residence outside Ohio is a best-interest factor that may weigh heavily against naming that parent the residential parent.

Manshadi v. Mossayebi · filed 2011-03-22(F)(1)(j)

In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: ... (j) whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside of Ohio. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j). ... The factor concerning whether either parent is planning to establish a residence out of state weighs heavily against the mother.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(j) permits a court to consider a parent’s planned move out of state in determining the child’s best interest, even if the move has not yet occurred.

In re S.W.-S. · filed 2013-11-01(F)(1)(j)

Thus, the “anticipated move” was one legitimate consideration in the trial court’s decision.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) allows a court to condition designation as residential parent and legal custodian on a parent’s return to Ohio when all the child’s best-interest factors support that decision; nonresidence alone is insufficient.

Rarden v. Rarden · filed 2013-11-12(F)(1)

Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conditioning Mother's status as residential parent and legal custodian upon her return to Ohio. The trial court did not deny Mother custody merely because she is a nonresident or will become a nonresident, but based its decision on a review of all of the best interest factors of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(j) requires a court deciding a child’s best interests to consider a parent’s plan to establish an out-of-state residence, even though the move would occur in the future.

Shipman v. Shipman · filed 2015-10-26(F)(1)(j)

Likewise, a parent’s plan to establish a residence outside of the state, even though it relates to a future action, needs to be considered under factor (j).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors may guide a court deciding a relocation and school district change when the governing order provides no decision standard.

McNeal v. Mahon · filed 2016-08-15(F)(1)

The trial court is permitted to look at the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) when the terms of the court order do not provide a standard for the trial court to employ in making its determination.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not treat a residential parent’s relocation alone as a change in circumstances sufficient to modify custody.

In re N.W.F. · filed 2019-09-30(E)(1)(a)

While the distance of the proposed move will unquestionably inconvenience father and make visitation more cumbersome and expensive, relocation by itself, with nothing more, does not constitute a change of circumstances.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(j) requires a court determining a child's best interest to consider whether either parent lives outside Ohio.

Badescu v. Badescu · filed 2020-09-03(F)(1)(j)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(j) requires the court to consider whether either parent has established a residence outside the state.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(j) permits consideration of a parent’s out-of-state residence in assessing the child’s best interest, but nonresidence alone cannot deprive a parent of custody.

In re O.L.G.C. · filed 2020-10-08(F)(1)(j)

A trial court may consider nonresidence in determining a child’s best interests, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(j), but nonresidence alone should not deprive a parent of custody.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best-interest factors that a court may use to decide a child-relocation request when the governing court order provides no standard.

Wallace v. Wallace · filed 2023-12-28(F)(1)

The domestic relations court is permitted to look at the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) when the terms of the court order do not provide a standard for the trial court to employ in making its determination.

Under Section 3109.04(F)(1), a parent's wish to relocate children does not outweigh the children's best interests or the other parent's interest in remaining close to them.

Qaqa v. Cintron · filed 2024-08-05(F)(1)

However, Mother's mere desire to live in a different city does not outweigh the children's best interest or Father's interest in being close to his children.

A parent’s unilateral relocation may be considered in the child’s best interest analysis, but it does not bar designation of that parent as residential parent when the designation serves the child’s best interest.

Marts v. Marts · filed 2025-09-08(F)(1)(j)

While Bret places great emphasis on the fact that Vanessa chose to move the children while the custody dispute was pending and should not have done so given the restraining order, it does not follow that Vanessa should not be named residential parent where it is in the best interest of the children. There is no question that courts may consider a unilateral decision to move a child and it may impact their consideration of factors such as a child’s ties to that community.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)'s change-of-circumstances requirement does not govern modifications of visitation time.

Thompson v. Oswalt · filed 2015-01-02(E)(1)(a)

Appellant claims the trial court erred in modifying the parenting/visitation time without a showing of a change of circumstances under R.C. 3109.04 and that the modification was in the best interest of the child. We disagree.

Section 3109.04(I) does not require a change in circumstances before a court temporarily modifies visitation.

Makruski v. Makruski · filed 2018-03-26(I)

Second, although mother argues in her merit brief that the trial court erred when it overruled her objections to the magistrate’s decision pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(I), her counsel conceded at oral argument that R.C. 3109.04(I) is not applicable in this case and thus, the trial court was not required to find a change in circumstances prior to temporarily modifying visitation.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(A) requires a change of circumstances to modify parental rights and responsibilities, but its requirement does not apply to a modification of visitation.

Selick v. Schaffer, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2006) · filed 2006-06-23(E)(1)(A)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(A) cites the "change of circumstances" test in any modification of parental rights and responsibilities however, this test is not applicable to issues regarding visitation which is controlled by R.C. 3109.05 .

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) custody-modification standards do not govern a non-residential parent’s request for more extensive visitation.

Livesay v. Livesay, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2004) · filed 2004-12-03(E)(1)(a)

That section, and not the standards for modification of a prior custody order in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), govern decisions on a non-residential parent's request for more extensive visitation.

Section 3109.04 allows a court to divide parenting time between the parents in its discretion even when no shared parenting arrangement was requested.

Shultz v. Shultz, Unpublished Decision (7-18-2005) · filed 2005-07-18

Even though shared parenting was not before the court, it was within the court's discretion to divide the time in the manner it believed was warranted.

Section 3109.04(F) does not apply to a modification of visitation; section 3109.051 governs instead.

Wilson v. Redmond, Unpublished Decision (7-26-2004) · filed 2004-07-26(F)

Contrary to Wilson's assertion, R.C. 3109.051 , not R.C. 3109.04 (F), applies to a modification of visitation, as in this case.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities but does not apply to a decision whether a parent’s visitation should be supervised.

Jackson v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (2-23-2004) · filed 2004-02-23(E)(1)(a)

While we agree with Appellant that R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) controls modification of the decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, such statute is inapplicable to this appeal.

Section 3109.04 governs modifications of parental rights and responsibilities; modification of visitation is governed by Section 3109.051 instead.

Flynn v. Flynn, Unpublished Decision (3-6-2003) · filed 2003-03-06

Although the record is replete with motions from both sides, and understandably the court may have had some difficulty comprehending exactly what these respective parties were seeking at any particular moment in time, one thing is certain: the appropriate and applicable standard for considering questions of modification of visitation is set forth in R.C. 3109.051 , not R.C. 3109.04 .

Section 3109.04(B) requires proof of changed circumstances to modify custody, but not to modify visitation.

Roudebush v. Roudebush · filed 1984-11-20(B)

Proof of changed circumstances is an element where a custody order is sought to be modified. R.C. 3109.04(B). While custody and visitation are related, they require distinct and separate considerations and a trial court enjoys a broader measure of discretion in setting visitation than in awarding or modifying custody. ... And, while domestic relations practitioners and judges routinely consider visitation modification in the context of the presence or absence of changed circumstances, there is no requirement that they do so.

Section 3109.04 governs modification of custody decrees but does not govern modification of visitation rights.

Appleby v. Appleby · filed 1986-05-21

R.C. 3109.04 provides specific guidelines for a trial court to follow in determining whether a prior custody decree should be modified. That section is silent as to rights of visitation. R.C. 3109.05 governs visitation rights.

Section 3109.04 requires a just and reasonable order; permitting overnight visitation is within the trial court’s discretion when no evidence shows harm to the children.

Conkel v. Conkel · filed 1987-02-24

In this case, the trial court was bound by R.C. 3109.04 to arrive at a just and reasonable order. No evidence was presented nor arguments made which support the proposition that the trial judge abused his discretion by permitting overnight visitation.

Section 3109.04(B) requires courts to consider its factors when awarding custody, but does not bind courts modifying visitation orders.

Bodine v. Bodine · filed 1988-02-11(B)

This latter assertion simply lists the factors outlined by R.C. 3109.04(B) which a court must consider in awarding custody. As such, Appleby specifically rejected this argument and stated that a trial court was not bound by these statutory factors in modifying a visitation order. While the trial court may consider such factors, ultimately an order of visitation rests in the sound discretion of the decreeing court.

Section 3109.04(C)(5) makes the mental and physical health of those involved relevant to a child’s best interests when visitation is modified.

Brossia v. Brossia · filed 1989-11-03(C)(5)

One of the factors to be considered therein is the mental and physical health of all persons involved. R.C. 3109.04(C)(5). Clearly, the mental health of the parties hereto and their minor children is a relevant factor to be considered in determining the parties’ motions as to modification of visitation.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) factors need not be considered when deciding a nonresidential parent’s motion to modify visitation.

Matter of Gilliam, Unpublished Decision (3-30-1998) · filed 1998-03-30(F)(1)

Contrary to appellant's assertion, the trial court did not have to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) when entertaining appellant's motion for visitation.

Section 3109.04 governs modifications of parental rights and responsibilities, including custody, but does not apply to visitation changes.

Balliett v. Horan, Unpublished Decision (7-27-1998) · filed 1998-07-27

R.C. 3109.04 clearly limits its applicability to modifications of parental rights and responsibilities (custody), not visitation changes.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) requires a juvenile court deciding a custody claim to determine the other parent’s visitation rights.

Matter of Burton, Unpublished Decision (8-20-1999) · filed 1999-08-20(A)(1)

The remedy he seeks, termination of the mother's right of visitation, is yet available to him when the court determines his custody claim, because pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (A) (1) the court must then determine the mother's right of visitation.

Section 3109.04 places authority over visitation with the court of common pleas, so a municipal court cannot modify a common pleas visitation order through a probation condition.

City of Rocky River v. Taylor, Unpublished Decision (2-17-2000) · filed 2000-02-17

The General Assembly has not conferred upon the municipal courts jurisdiction to rule on matters of visitation, instead granting that jurisdiction to the courts of common pleas. See R.C. 3109.04 . The parties appear to agree that defendant had visitation with the son pursuant to a valid domestic relations court order issued by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Having established the existence of this order, the municipal court had no jurisdiction to enter any order that purported to modify defendant's court-ordered right to visitation.

Under § 3109.04(K)(2), the residential parent’s care, custody, and control of a child includes the right to control the child’s medical care.

McFarland v. McFarland, Unpublished Decision (10-21-2001) · filed 2001-10-21(K)(2)

"Care, custody, and control" necessarily includes the right to control medical care.

Section 3109.04 authorizes domestic relations courts to modify their own custody and visitation orders, and a challenge to compliance with a shared-parenting decree belongs in the domestic relations court that issued it.

Broadnax v. Bowling, Unpublished Decision (3-12-2004) · filed 2004-03-12

R.C. 3109.04 authorizes a domestic relations court to modify its own custody and visitation orders. ... Thus, where a domestic relations court has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce or modify its shared-parenting decree, a challenge to a party's adherence to the terms of the decree must be filed in the domestic relations court.

Section 3109.04 governs reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities, which requires a change in circumstances and a best-interest analysis; a request to modify visitation is governed by section 3109.051 instead.

Yannitell v. Oaks, 07ca63 (11-26-2008) · filed 2008-11-26

However, as the court properly noted during the hearing on the motion, the motion was essentially a motion for a modification of visitation, which is governed by R.C. 3109.051 and only involves a best interest of the child analysis, rather than a motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities, which is governed by R.C. 3109.04 and requires that a change in circumstance be demonstrated, as well as a best interest of the child analysis.

Section 3109.04 governs custody issues, not visitation or parenting time issues.

Midkiff v. Kuzniak · filed 2010-06-04

Secondly, appellant’s argument that the court somehow violated R.C. 3109.04 is misplaced. R.C. 3109.04 deals solely with custody issues, not visitation issues.

Section 3109.04(F) does not govern parenting time when no shared parenting plan is in place; section 3109.051(D) supplies the applicable factors.

Fordham v. Fordham, 8-08-17 (4-27-2009) · filed 2009-04-27(F)

Initially, we note that R.C. 3109.04 is not applicable to this case, as that statute governs allocation of parental rights and responsibilities where a shared parenting plan is in place. Braatz v. Braatz (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 40 . R.C. 3109.051 is applicable to orders granting parenting time where no shared parenting plan is in place, as is the case here. See Id. Additionally, the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F) and 3109.051 (D) are not interchangeable.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires an in-camera interview on request when the court allocates parental rights and responsibilities; a motion to modify visitation while custody remains allocated is governed by section 3109.051.

Felter v. Felter · filed 2017-03-24(B)(1)

However, this case does not involve the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, rather it involves a motion to modify visitation rights where one parent has been designated the residential parent and legal custodian. As such, this case is not governed by R.C. 3109.04, but instead is governed by R.C. 3109.051.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, not modification of a nonresidential parent’s visitation schedule.

In re: F.B. · filed 2018-06-22(E)(1)(a)

The test set forth in R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is used when a party is seeking to “modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities.” This statute does not govern modification of the visitation schedule of a non-residential parent.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) lists best-interest factors that guide a fact-specific decision to reduce a parent’s parenting time under a prior order.

Powell v. Lawson · filed 2019-12-05(F)(1) and (2)

A determination to reduce a parent's parenting time from a prior order is necessarily case and fact specific based on the "best interest of a child" factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) and the parenting time factors listed in R.C. 3109.051(D).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and satisfaction of one of its three listed provisions before a court reallocates parental rights through a parenting time change.

Herron v. Herron · filed 2021-06-30(E)(1)(a)

To reallocate parental rights in accordance with R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), the trial court must find (1) that there has been a change in the circumstances of the child, the residential parent, or either parent, (2) that the modification is in the child’s best interest, and (3) that one of the three provisions in R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(i)-(iii) applies.

Section 3109.04 applies to legal custody following an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency, rather than to parenting time.

In re H.P. · filed 2021-12-17

But, R.C. 3109.04 applies to the issue of legal custody following an adjudication of abuse, neglect or dependency,” not parenting time.

Section 3109.04(F) supplies best-interest factors for custody allocations; section 3109.051 governs parenting-time determinations.

I.R. v. D.R. · filed 2023-05-01(F)

As previously noted, many of the best interest factors contained in R.C. 3109.04(F) and 3109.051(D) mirror one another, Michael at ¶ 28, but only R.C. 3109.051 governs parenting time determinations.

Section 3109.04 requires courts to consider the child’s best interest when allocating parental rights, and a reduction in parenting time unsupported by the best-interest evidence is an abuse of discretion.

A.E. v. J.E. · filed 2024-05-03(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 governs the allocation of parental rights and requires a court to consider the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(A). ... We find the reduction in Husband’s parenting time was an abuse of discretion under these circumstances.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) requires an allocation of parental rights, including continuing contact for the nonresidential parent, to be consistent with the child’s best interest.

In re A.C.-L. · filed 2026-04-30(A)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(A)(1) provides that, “in a manner consistent with the best interest of the children,” the court shall divide between the parents rights and responsibilities for the care of the child, including the right of the nonresidential parent “to have continuing contact with the children.” ... Mother has not demonstrated that requiring her and Father to exchange the Child at dinner time on a weekend constitutes an abuse of discretion, much less amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

Section 3109.04 governs modifications of parental rights and responsibilities; modifications of visitation are governed by section 3109.051.

Nungester v. Nungester · filed 2017-07-24

Specifically, ... the trial court stated that R.C. 3109.04 was the guide to be followed when addressing the modification of parental rights and responsibilities. Doc. 127. This would be correct for a modification of parental rights, but the trial court was addressing a modification of visitation, not a modification of custody.1 As discussed above, the correct statute to be used in modifications of visitation is R.C. 3109.051.

Section 3109.04 applies to custody rights, while modifications of visitation rights are governed by a different statute.

Elson v. Elson, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2005) · filed 2005-06-27

The Court found that R.C. 3109.04 applied only to custody rights, and that R.C. 3109.051 (D) set forth the standard for trial courts to apply when asked to modify visitation rights. ... Accordingly, this appeal deals with visitation rights not custody rights.

Section 3109.04 makes an approved shared parenting plan a court order and implicitly obliges each parent to ensure the other receives the parenting time the plan provides.

Carver v. Halley, 06ca54 (5-11-2007) · filed 2007-05-11(D)(1)(a); (K)(5)

Nevertheless, a shared parenting plan that is approved and adopted by a domestic relations court is a court order, and its terms reflect the court's findings concerning the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a). Further, unless the plan provides otherwise, both parents are the residential parents and legal custodians of the child. R.C. 3109.04 (K)(5). Therefore, implicit in any shared parenting plan is a mutual obligation imposed on the parties to ensure that the other parent is afforded the parenting time for which the plan provides.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) makes a parent’s payment of required child support and any support arrearage factors in determining the child’s best interests for custody.

In Re Custody of Harris · filed 2006-07-14(F)(1)(g)

Also pertinent are the facts that Harris was held in contempt twice for failing to pay support and that a substantial arrearage in child support existed. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(g) (which notes that one factor in determining a child’s best interests is whether the parent has paid support as required and whether an arrearage exists).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) permits a court to consider a parent’s failure to make child support payments when allocating parental rights and responsibilities, even if the payment issue is pending in a separate motion.

Kauble v. Pfeiffer, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2003) · filed 2003-12-22(F)(1)(g)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(g), which allows the court to consider whether a party has made all support payments, it was entirely appropriate for the trial court to consider Pfeiffer's failure to make child support payments in making its determination of parental rights and responsibilities. Accordingly, the consideration of that issue in a separate pending motion is irrelevant, and the trial court could properly consider such evidence.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) requires courts to consider missed child support payments only when those payments were required by a child support order.

Rosebrugh v. Rosebrugh, Unpublished Decision (8-22-2003) · filed 2003-08-22(F)(1)(g)

R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(g) requires the court to consider whether a party has failed to make support payments pursuant to a child support order. There was not a child support order in this case. Therefore, appellee was not required to pay support.

Section 3109.04(D) does not prevent a trial court from modifying child support under a joint custody plan without both parents’ consent.

Miller v. Miller · filed 1990-10-09(D)

In doing so, we disagree with appellee's assertion that provisions in R.C. 3109.04 allowing for adoption of a joint custody arrangement do not permit the modification of child support without the consent of both parents. Although R.C. 3109.04(D) states that "a plan for joint custody shall include provisions ... covering factors such as ... child support obligations ...", we reject the notion that this statute prevents the trial court from Clermont modifying child support as necessary.

Former § 3109.04(B)(2)(b) permits modification of a child support obligation in a joint custody plan without both custodians’ consent when the ten percent variation exception under former § 3113.215(B)(4) applies.

Martin v. Martin · filed 1993-04-14(B)(2)(b)

Therefore, we hold that notwithstanding the proscription on modification of a joint custody order absent the consent of both custodians under former R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(b), a trial court may modify a child support obligation under a joint custody plan without the consent of both custodians, pursuant to the ten percent variation exception set forth in former R.C. 3113.215(B)(4).

Under former § 3109.04(B)(2)(b), child support in a joint custody plan generally requires both parents’ agreement to modify, but a court may modify it without both parents’ consent when the child support guidelines’ ten percent variation exception applies.

Santantonio v. Santantonio · filed 1993-06-09(B)(2)(b)

Under the joint custody statute, child support provisions can be modified only if: (1) the modification is in the best interest of the children; and (2) both parties agree to the modification. R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(b). ... “Notwithstanding former R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(b), a trial court may modify a child support obligation under a joint custody plan without the consent of both custodians pursuant to the ten percent variation exception set forth in former R.C. 3113.215(B)(4).” ... In view of the Martin decision, we find wife’s assignment of error well taken.

Section 3109.04(A)(2) requires a change in circumstances before child support under a shared parenting order may be modified.

Matrka v. Matrka · filed 1995-01-11(A)(2)

R.C. 3109.04(A)(2) and 3113.215(B)(4) set forth the standards for allocating and modifying child support in cases involving shared parenting orders. ... In the absence of any change in circumstances, we find the trial court’s decision modifying the original child support decree arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(G) requires a shared-parenting plan to address all factors relevant to the children’s care, including child support.

Eickelberger v. Eickelberger · filed 1994-02-22(G)

A shared-parenting plan must include all factors relevant to the care of children, including the provision of child support. R.C. 3109.04(G).

Under § 3109.04(K)(6), both parents in a shared parenting arrangement are residential parents at all times.

Pauly v. Pauly · filed 1997-12-10(K)(6)

Instead, under R.C. 3109.04(K)(6), both parents are considered residential parents at all times.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) and (2) allows a court to designate one residential parent and legal custodian or order shared parenting; a custody order labeled shared parenting may have the practical effect of split custody.

Arthur v. Arthur · filed 1998-10-22(A)(1) and (2)

The court may either designate one parent as the residential parent and legal custodian who bears the primary rights and responsibilities for the care of the children, or may issue a shared-parenting order requiring the parents to share all or some of the aspects of the physical and legal care of the children. R.C. 3109.04(A)(1) and (2). ... Despite the trial court’s classification of the custody order as a shared-parenting plan and wife’s attack on the same basis, the practical effect is a split-custody order.

Former § 3109.04(B)(2)(b) does not prevent a court from setting child support under a joint custody plan above the parents’ agreed amount when the agreed amount falls below the child support guidelines.

Matter of Thompson, Unpublished Decision (9-30-1999) · filed 1999-09-30(B)(2)(b)

Appellant relies solely on Martin to support his contention that the trial court erred by changing the amount of his child support obligation; however, Martin does not support this contention. In Martin , the Ohio Supreme Court held that "notwithstandingformer R.C. 3109.04 (B)(2)(b), 2 a trial court may modify a child support obligation under a joint custody plan without the consent of both custodians pursuant to the ten percent variation exception set forth in former R.C. 3113.215 (B)(4)." Martin at syllabus. ... In the instant case, the trial court merely did what it was obligated to do. Because the amount of child support included in the parties' joint custody decree fell below the child support guidelines, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $40 per week, per child, instead of $35 per week/per child; the trial court's only mistake was forgetting to change the joint custody decree to conform to what it had ordered.

Under § 3109.04(K)(6), both parents in a shared parenting arrangement are residential parents and legal custodians.

Hubin v. Hubin, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2000) · filed 2000-06-30(K)(6)

The parties have a shared parenting agreement and, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (K)(6), in a shared parenting case, each parent is a residential parent and legal custodian. ... Thus, even though the trial court erred in designating appellee as the residential parent and legal custodian on the worksheet, appellant was not prejudiced.

Under § 3109.04(E)(4)(b), a parent in a shared-parenting plan has notice that a motion to modify child support may result in that parent becoming the child-support obligor, depending on the child-support worksheet calculations.

Murphy v. Murphy · filed 2014-02-26(E)(4)(b)

Given the terms of the parties’ shared-parenting plan and the language in R.C. 3109.04(E)(4)(b), Rudolph had notice that, depending upon the child-support worksheet calculations, she could be designated the child-support obligor and thus required to pay child support to Murphy.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to modify child support on its own motion if the modification is in the children’s best interest.

Reddy v. Reddy · filed 2015-08-21(E)(2)(b)

We agree that the trial court was incorrect in stating that a court may not modify child support on its own motion, because R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to do so as long as the modification is in the best interest of the children. Murphy v. Murphy, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130229, 2014-Ohio-656, ¶ 38, citing Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53, 2007-Ohio-5589, 876 N.E.2d 546, ¶ 27-31.

Under a shared parenting order, each parent remains a residential parent and legal custodian regardless of where the child is staying, unless the order provides otherwise or the context clearly requires otherwise.

Hattenbach v. Watson · filed 2016-09-02(L)(6)

However, R.C. 3119.07(A) [formerly R.C. 3113.215(C)], does not apply to shared parenting agreements because under shared parenting agreements both parents are considered residential parents at all times. Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 388–389, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (1977). Accord R.C. 3109.04(L)(6): “Unless the context clearly requires otherwise and except as otherwise provided in the order, if an order is issued by a court pursuant to this section and the order provides for shared parenting of a child, each parent, regardless of where the child is physically located or with whom the child is residing at a particular point in time, as specified in the order, is the ‘residential parent,’ the ‘residential parent and legal custodian,’ or the ‘custodial parent’ of the child.”

When a court adopts a shared-parenting plan, it must use the child-support worksheet applicable to shared parenting rather than the split-parenting worksheet.

Sweeney v. Sweeney · filed 2019-05-08(A)(2)

Because the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to employ a shared-parenting worksheet as required by R.C. 3109.04(A)(2) and former R.C. 3119.022, and because it abused its discretion in establishing Deborah’s gross income, we sustain the second assignment of error.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) requires the court to consider a parent’s unpaid child support arrearages in deciding the child’s best interest, even when the support obligation is recalculated and offset.

Haldy v. Hoeffel · filed 2020-03-16(F)(1)(g)

The trial court expressly addressed Todd’s failure to pay his child support obligation resulting in an arrearage in excess of $20,000.00 in satisfaction of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(g). ... This recalculation and offset do not abrogate the trial court’s statutory requirement to consider a particular best-interest factor concerning his failure to pay his child support arrearages.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) applies to custody modifications under division (E)(1), requiring the court to divide parental responsibilities, including child support, when it designates a new residential parent.

Dyer v. Gomez · filed 2022-03-31(A)(1)

Likewise, if a new residential parent and legal custodian is designated, the court should “divide between the parents the other rights and responsibilities, including, but not limited to, the responsibility to provide support for the children * * *”.

Under § 3109.04(F)(2)(a), parents' ability to cooperate and make decisions jointly is a primary factor in deciding whether shared parenting serves the children's best interests.

Sadowski v. Sadowski, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2007) · filed 2007-09-27(F)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2)(a), a primary factor to be considered when determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the children includes "the ability of the parents to cooperate and make decisions jointly." ... It is clear that the parties cannot jointly make decisions regarding the children's welfare.

Section 3109.04(F)(2)(a) requires the court to consider whether the parents can cooperate when deciding whether to adopt a shared parenting plan.

Holden v. Holden, 2007ca00072 (12-10-2007) · filed 2007-12-10(F)(2)(a)

It is obvious from the mutual acrimony that the issue of parental cooperation required by statute is not present sub judice.

A court may decline shared parenting when the parents cannot communicate and make decisions jointly, because their ability to cooperate bears on the child’s best interest.

Harkey v. Harkey, 2006-L-273 (3-7-2008) · filed 2008-03-07(F)(2)(a)

Among these factors is "[t]he ability of the parents to cooperate and make decisions jointly, with respect to the children." R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2)(a). ... Bearing in mind that "[t]he discretion which a trial court enjoys in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect," we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision not to adopt a shared parenting plan for the few remaining months of the child's minority, particularly in light of the court's findings regarding the parents' ability to communicate and the child's relationship with John.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) calls for consideration of all relevant best-interest factors when deciding shared parenting, and parental communication problems alone do not require rejection of a shared parenting plan.

El-Badewi v. El-Badewi, 2006ca00122 (7-23-2007) · filed 2007-07-23(F)(2)

The trial court considered all of the above factors and noted there was a communication problem but "there are other factors at play." Judgment Entry dated April 7, 2006. {¶ 71} The trial court relied heavily on the reports of the guardian ad litem and the psychologist as well as the in-camera interview of the children to determine shared parenting was necessary. This Court will give the trial court wide latitude on the consideration of this evidence.

When a court objects to a proposed shared parenting plan under subsection (D)(1)(a)(iii), it may request a revised plan but may not change the plan itself.

Schattschneider v. Schattschneider, 2-06-24 (5-14-2007) · filed 2007-05-14(D)(1)(a)(iii)

If a trial court has objections to portions of a submitted shared parenting plan, it may request that the party file a modified shared parenting plan to address its concerns. ... On this record, the trial court did not merely voice its objections to the proposed shared parenting plan; instead, the court changed the provisions it found objectionable, and this action is not statutorily permissible.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a preliminary inquiry into changed circumstances when a proposed modification of a shared parenting plan concerns parental rights and responsibilities.

Adkins v. Grant, Ca2007-01-001 (8-13-2007) · filed 2007-08-13(E)(1)(a)

Because father moved the court to modify the shared parenting plan in regard to his parental rights and responsibilities, however, the trial court should have analyzed the facts and made its decision pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), which includes a preliminary inquiry as to whether a change in the children's circumstances has occurred.

Section 3109.04(F)(2)(a) requires consideration of the parents’ ability to cooperate and make joint decisions when determining whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest.

Goldsboro v. Goldsboro, 2006 Ca 48 (5-4-2007) · filed 2007-05-04(F)(2)(a)

The trial court's designation of John as the residential parent is supported by competent credible evidence. The record reflects contradictory evidence regarding the ability of the parties to agree about any details regarding the parenting of E.G. in the past and in the future. The trial court determined, from the conflicting evidence in the record, that the parties were not able to communicate effectively concerning E.G.'s interests and needs, and concluded that shared parenting was not in his best interests. Upon termination of the shared parenting plan, the trial court focused on the relationship between E.G. and John, as well as the recommendations of the GAL, who opined that it would be in E.G.'s best interests to be permanently placed with John. The positive nature of that relationship tipped the balance in favor of John being designated the residential parent. We do not find this conclusion to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 3109.04(F) requires a court considering a shared parenting request to assess the children’s best interests using its statutory factors.

Hepfner v. Hepfner, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2007) · filed 2007-02-08(F)

In considering a parent's shared parenting request, the trial court is to consider the best interests of the children by addressing the R.C. § 3109.04 (F) factors.

In deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest, the court may consider the practical effect of the parents’ distance and frequent travel on a young child.

Parker v. Parker, Unpublished Decision (8-10-2006) · filed 2006-08-10(F)(2)

We cannot say the trial court's decision to reject plaintiff's proposed shared parenting plan was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. To the contrary, the trial court carefully reviewed each applicable statutory factor and determined that traveling to Ohio every month was too much for Cora to handle at her age. ... Given Cora's age, the geographic proximity of the parties unquestionably negatively impacts the reasonableness and practicality of any proposed shared parenting.

When neither parent requests or submits a shared parenting plan, Section 3109.04(A)(1) requires the court to consider the child’s best interest, designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian, and allocate the remaining parental rights and responsibilities.

Pennycuff v. Thompson, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2006) · filed 2006-03-27(A)(1)

Relevant to this case, neither party requested a shared parenting plan, nor did either party submit a proposed shared parenting plan to the court. Therefore, the court had to consider the best interest of the child and "allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children primarily to one of the parents, designate that parent as the residential parent and the legal custodian of the child, and divide between the parents the other rights and responsibilities for the care of the children[.]" R.C. 3109.04 (A)(1).

A change in the residential parent’s circumstances can justify modifying a shared parenting plan, but the modification must be necessary to serve the children’s best interest.

Luckenbach v. Luckenbach, Unpublished Decision (5-19-2006) · filed 2006-05-19(E)(1)(a)

While "a change has occurred in the circumstances of * * * [the children's] residential parent" that justifies a modification of the parties' shared parenting plan, there is no factual support in the record that the two week reduction in Mr. Luckenbach's summer parenting time "is necessary to serve the best interest of the [children]." R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

When neither parent requests or submits a shared parenting plan, § 3109.04(A)(1) requires the court to allocate parental rights and responsibilities based on the child’s best interests and designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian.

Scott v. Minger, Unpublished Decision (7-10-2006) · filed 2006-07-10(A)(1)

Relevant to this case, neither party requested a shared parenting plan, nor did either party submit one to the court. Therefore, the court had to consider the best interests of the child and "allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the [child] primarily to one of the parents, designate that parent as the residential parent and the legal custodian of the child, and divide between the parents the other rights and responsibilities for the care of the [child]" R.C. 3109.04 (A)(1).

In deciding whether shared parenting is in a child's best interest, the court considers the parents' ability to cooperate; inability to communicate or cooperate can support refusal of a shared parenting plan.

Wingard v. Wingard, Unpublished Decision (12-30-2005) · filed 2005-12-30(F)(2)(a)

One factor to be considered in determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the child is the ability of the parents to cooperate. R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2)(a). Based on the foregoing testimony by Mr. and Mrs. Wingard, we conclude that the evidence in the record supports the finding that a shared parenting plan is not in Shawn's best interest, because the parties are unable to communicate or cooperate.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) allows a court to consider the parents’ ability to cooperate and the likely disruption to the children when deciding whether shared parenting serves their best interests.

Lough v. Lough, Unpublished Decision (1-6-2005) · filed 2005-01-06(F)(2)

While appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to adopt her shared parenting plan since the children have a close relationship with appellant and her family, appellant volunteers at and participates in the childrens' school, and, while appellee has to leave the children with a nanny while he works, appellant is able to be with the children a substantial amount of time due to her work, we cannot say that the trial court's decision constituted an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies factors for determining a child’s best interests, and (F)(2) supplies factors for determining whether shared parenting is appropriate.

Schoren v. Schoren, Unpublished Decision (4-29-2005) · filed 2005-04-29(F)(1), (F)(2)

A review of the trial court's decision, supplemental decision, and judgment entry makes clear that the trial court considered the factors in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) for determining the children's best interests and in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2) for determining whether shared parenting is appropriate.

Section 3109.04 requires a court deciding whether shared parenting serves the children’s best interests to consider all relevant best interest factors.

Swain v. Swain, Unpublished Decision (8-3-2005) · filed 2005-08-03(F)

R.C. 3109.04 governs the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in divorce proceedings and requires the court to consider the children's best interest. ... In this case, the trial court considered all of the above factors that were relevant.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) permits a court to deny shared parenting when supported findings show the parents cannot cooperate, because their ability to cooperate bears on the child’s best interests.

Bechara v. Essad, Unpublished Decision (6-11-2004) · filed 2004-06-11(F)(2)

But these cases do not say that a trial court abuses its discretion when it refuses to award shared parenting solely because of an inability to cooperate. ... In this case, the trial court's extensive findings are supported by competent, credible evidence and those findings support its decision not to implement a shared parenting plan. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bechara's request for shared parenting.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) requires the court to designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian when neither parent requests shared parenting or files a shared parenting plan; a temporary shared parenting order does not authorize a different final custody allocation.

Schmidli v. Schmidli, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2003) · filed 2003-06-19(A)(1)

In conclusion, the magistrate and the court erred in imposing shared parenting when neither party filed a motion or pleading requesting shared parenting or a shared parenting plan. The mere fact that a temporary custody order is a shared parenting order does not give the court authority to ignore R.C. 3109.04 (A)(1) in determining custody at the final hearing.

Section 3109.04(G) requires a proposed shared parenting plan to be filed with the petition for dissolution or at least thirty days before the hearing on parental rights and responsibilities; a court may reject a plan filed after that hearing begins and one day before it concludes.

Howell v. Howell, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2003) · filed 2003-09-12(G)

R.C. 3109.04 (G) provides that a proposed plan for shared parenting shall be filed with the petition for dissolution of marriage or at least thirty days prior to the hearing on the issue of parental rights and responsibilities. In this case, no shared parenting plan was filed with the complaint for divorce. The hearing on the allocation of parental rights began on May 1, 2001 and continued on various dates through April 25, 2002. Mr. Howell filed his proposed shared parenting plan on April 24, 2002. Filing the proposed shared parenting plan almost a year after the hearing on parental responsibilities began and only one day before the hearing concluded clearly did not comply with the statutory provisions and did not afford Mrs. Howell an adequate opportunity to respond to it. The trial court could have reasonably rejected the plan on this basis alone.

Before imposing a shared parenting plan, a court must determine that the plan serves the child’s best interest by considering all relevant factors, including those in subsections (F)(1) and (2).

Jagusch v. Jagusch, Unpublished Decision (1-22-2003) · filed 2003-01-22(D)(1)(b)

However, prior to imposing a shared parenting plan, the trial court must first determine whether such plan is in the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(b). In determining whether a shared parenting plan is in the best interest of the children, a trial court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) and (2).

Section 3109.04 requires courts deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interests to consider the factors in both (F)(1) and (F)(2); a supported plan may be approved despite a parent’s concern about disruption.

Warner v. Warner, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2003) · filed 2003-09-29(F)(2)

In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 , the court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to the factors listed under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(a)-(j) and in determining whether shared parenting is in the best interests of the child, the court must consider the factors listed under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2)(a)-(e) along with R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(a)-(j). ... In addition, there is insufficient evidence in the record to show that the shared parenting plan would result in disruption in the child's life or that any factors contributing to disruption were not considered by the trial court.

Section 3109.04(F) permits a court to find shared parenting contrary to the children’s best interests when the parents cannot cooperate with each other.

Klausing v. Overholt, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2002) · filed 2002-10-23(F)

Given the failure of the parents to behave civilly to each other, the trial court was permitted by R.C. 3109.04 (F) to determine that shared parenting would not be in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(F) requires consideration of the relevant best-interest factors when allocating parental rights under a shared parenting plan, and those factors may support primary possession with one parent during the school year and the other during summer.

Mason v. Mason, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2002) · filed 2002-11-07(F)

These findings by the court, while recognizing William's equal involvement in the care of the children, took into consideration the effects of William and Joan's different parenting styles, and adopted the recommendation by Dr. Huntsman, the social worker, and the Guardian Ad Litem. Accordingly, we do not perceive an abuse of discretion in the court's application of the pertinent statutory factors to the facts in this case.

Section 3109.04(A) permits either sole residential custody or shared parenting; a parent who proposed shared parenting cannot claim on appeal that entering a shared parenting order was an abuse of discretion.

Walker v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (8-26-2002) · filed 2002-08-26(A)(1) and (2)

The trial court may either designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian of the children, or may issue a shared parenting order requiring the parents to share all or some aspects of the children's physical and legal care. Id., citing R.C. 3109.04 (A)(1) and (2). ... Since Donna never requested to be named the children's sole residential parent and legal custodian, she cannot now claim that the trial court abused its discretion by entering a shared parenting order.

Section 3109.04(A)(2) gives the trial court discretion to order shared parenting over a parent’s objection when a shared parenting plan is in the child’s best interest.

Delevie v. Delevie · filed 1993-02-25(A)(2)

Although R.C. 3109.04 gives the trial court authority to order shared parenting over the objection of one of the parties, the court's decision is discretionary: ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant shared parenting under the facts of this case.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs a proposed change to a shared parenting plan that substantially changes the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Fisher v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (6-23-1997) · filed 1997-06-23(E)(1)(a)

We find that R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) is applicable to the present case because appellant's proposed modifications of the shared parenting agreement substantially changes the allocation of the parties' parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) permits shared parenting despite the parents’ current conflict and lack of cooperation when the statutory factors support the plan and it serves the children’s best interests.

Bailey v. Bailey, Unpublished Decision (2-19-1999) · filed 1999-02-19(F)(2)

Based upon this evidence, the trial court examined all of the factors required by R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2). As a result, the trial court found that although the parties do not get along and do not cooperate at this time, both of them love their children and will put the children's best interests first. The trial court also determined that both parties would fulfill the terms of the court order. Additionally, both the psychologist and the guardian ad litem recommended a shared parenting plan as being in the best interest of the children. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(F)(2)(c) requires a court deciding whether shared parenting is in a child’s best interest to consider spousal abuse, even when the incidents did not directly involve the child.

Kelly-Doley v. Doley, Unpublished Decision (3-12-1999) · filed 1999-03-12(F)(2)(c)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2)(c), the trial court was required to consider this spousal abuse. Appellant's contention in his brief that the incidents did not involve the parties' communications with regard to the child or did not otherwise involve the child is not well-taken.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) does not allow a court to order shared parenting when neither parent has requested it.

Piwinski v. Piwinski, Unpublished Decision (3-18-1999) · filed 1999-03-18(A)(1)

In this case the trial court ordered shared parenting where no motion or pleading for shared parenting was before the court in violation of R.C. 3109.04 (A).

Section 3109.04(A) permits an adjudicated biological father to participate in a shared parenting decree even when he was not a party to the marriage.

Corrigan v. Corrigan, Unpublished Decision (5-13-1999) · filed 1999-05-13(A)

Clearly, once Rochelle was determined to be the biological father of Alexandra Beatrice, he became the appropriate party to the proceeding from which to obtain child support and determine parental rights and responsibilities pursuant to a shared parenting decree.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) permits a shared parenting plan to continue when competent evidence supports findings on the child's best interests and the statutory factors, including the parents' ability to cooperate.

In Re Marriage of Davidovics v. Shore, Unpublished Decision (7-29-1999) · filed 1999-07-29(F)(2)

R.C. 3109.04 (F) (2) requires the court to make a number of findings before ordering a shared parenting plan. The plan must be in the best interest of the child; the parents must be able to cooperate with one another; the parents must have an ability to encourage a loving and respectful relationship between the other parent and the child; there is no history of child abuse, spouse abuse, other domestic violence, or parental kidnapping by either parent; the geographic proximity of the parents to each other, as the proximity relates to the practical considerations of shared parenting; the recommendation of the guardian ad litem of the child. ... The trial court relied on competent, credible evidence when it determined continuing a Shared Parenting Plan would be in Nathan's best interests.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires the court to consider the child’s best interests, parental cooperation, support for the child’s relationship with each parent, abuse or kidnapping history, geographic proximity, and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation when deciding whether to order shared parenting.

In Re Marriage of Davidovics · filed 1999-08-18(F)(2)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) requires the court to make a number of findings before ordering a shared parenting plan: The plan must be in the best interest of the child; the parents must be able to cooperate with one another; the parents must have an ability to encourage a loving and respectful relationship between the other parent and the child; there is no history of child abuse, spouse abuse, other domestic violence, or parental kidnapping by either parent; the geographic proximity of the parents to each other, as the proximity relates to the practical considerations of shared parenting; and the recommendation of the guardian ad litem of the child. The magistrate’s decision specifically addresses all of these issues and makes a finding that a shared parenting plan is in Nathan’s best interests.

Section 3109.04 requires a court deciding a shared parenting motion to determine the children’s best interests after considering all relevant factors, including those in subsections (F)(1) and (F)(2).

Pavlicko v. Pavlicko, Unpublished Decision (12-6-1999) · filed 1999-12-06(F)(1) and (2)

The trial court's discretion is limited only in that its determination on a motion for shared parenting must be based on what is in the best interest of the children and must entail consideration of all relevant factors including, but not limited to, those listed in R.C. § 3109.04 (F)(1) and (2).

Section 3109.04 does not require a court to maintain a shared parenting plan when the parents are unwilling to cooperate and communicate.

Milner v. Milner, Unpublished Decision (12-14-1999) · filed 1999-12-14(E)(2)(c)

Although appellant argues that the trial court should have merely ordered the parties to comply with the existing shared parenting plan and that its termination amounted to judicial overkill, the statutory scheme of R.C. 3109.04 does not require that the trial court maintain a shared parenting plan in the face of evidence that the parents are unwilling to cooperate and communicate.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) precludes a shared parenting arrangement when neither parent files a proposed shared parenting plan.

In Re Foster, Unpublished Decision (3-13-2000) · filed 2000-03-13(A)(1)

In any event, neither party filed a proposed shared parenting plan in accordance with R.C. 3109.04 (G). The trial court was thus precluded from entering a "shared parenting" arrangement concerning Jennifer's custody.

Section 3109.04(F)(2)(d) requires courts assessing shared parenting to consider whether the parents live close enough for the arrangement to work, and permits a reasonable geographic-proximity requirement.

Brusaw v. Brusaw, Unpublished Decision (5-8-2000) · filed 2000-05-08(F)(2)(d)

When determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the children, the trial court is required to consider all relevant factors, including "[t]he geographic proximity of the parents to each other, as the proximity relates to the practical considerations of shared parenting." R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2)(d). In the present case, the trial court placed no limitations on appellant other than to require that she live within reasonable geographic proximity of appellee, a practical requirement if shared parenting is to be feasible.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits modification of a shared parenting plan based on the child’s best interest without a finding of changed circumstances.

Morrison v. Morrison, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2000) · filed 2000-11-15(E)(2)(b)

This Court has previously determined that pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b), a trial court may modify a shared parenting decree solely on a determination of the best interest of the child. See Keating v. Keating (Dec. 30, 1998), Lorain App. No. 97CA006879, unreported at 7. Thus, no finding of changed circumstances is necessary.

Section 3109.04(A)(2) permits an award of parental rights or shared parenting only to a child's natural or adoptive parents.

In Re Ray, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2001) · filed 2001-02-16(A)(2)

Accordingly, we reject Teri and Shelly's argument and conclude that "parent," for the purposes of R.C. 3109.04 , includes only the natural or adoptive parents of a child. Because Shelly is neither the natural nor the adoptive parent of any of the five children, she is not a "parent" within the meaning of R.C. 3109.04 and, accordingly, is not entitled to an award of parental rights or shared parenting under the statute.

When deciding whether shared parenting is in a child’s best interest, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those in § 3109.04(F)(1)-(2).

Rothwell v. Rothwell, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2001) · filed 2001-05-14(F)(1)-(2)

When determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the children, the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)-(2) and 3113.215(B)(3).

Section 3109.04(F)(2)(a) permits denial of shared parenting when the parents cannot communicate and cooperate to make joint decisions about their children.

Rengan v. Rengan, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2001) · filed 2001-06-29(F)(2)(a)

The record supports a finding that Alessandro hampered Janet's attempts to communicate with him regarding the care of the children. Furthermore, there was ample evidence that, because of this behavior, the parties were unable to cooperate and make joint decisions regarding the children. This type of conduct would certainly hinder the effective functioning of a shared parenting plan. We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the request for shared parenting.

When a shared parenting plan prohibits relocation without consent or a court order, the change-in-circumstances analysis does not apply and the court instead considers the child’s best interests under division (F)(1).

Gydosh v. Vice, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2002) · filed 2002-03-28(E)(1)(a)

Here, paragraph 1(6)(j) provides that Neither parent shall relocate the child's residence from Cuyahoga County or the adjacent counties without the prior written consent of the other parent or an Order of Court. Tami consented to this provision as part of the shared parenting plan. Accordingly, the "change of circumstances" analysis is not applicable and we need only look to see if the trial court properly applied the "best interest of the children test" from R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

In deciding whether shared parenting serves the children’s best interests, a court must consider the factors listed in § 3109.04(F)(2).

Errington v. Errington, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2002) · filed 2002-03-29(F)(2)

In determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the children, the trial court must consider the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2).

To terminate a shared parenting plan, a court must consider the factors in § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) as well as comply with § 3109.04(E)(2)(c).

Oliver v. Arras, Unpublished Decision (4-1-2002) · filed 2002-04-01(E)(2)(c)

We agree with this interpretation and conclude that in order to terminate a shared parenting plan, the trial court must consider the factors contained in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), in addition to complying with subsection (c) of the statute.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan only after the court also considers the factors in subsection (E)(1)(a).

Oliver v. Arras, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2002) · filed 2002-04-19(E)(2)(c)

We agree with this interpretation and conclude that in order to terminate a shared parenting plan, the trial court must consider the factors contained in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), in addition to complying with subsection (c) of the statute.

Under § 3109.04, a trial court may make a ministerial change to a parent’s shared parenting plan, such as leaving its duration subject to further court order, without creating its own plan.

Corradi v. Corradi, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2002) · filed 2002-06-10

Although the trial court lacks the authority to sua sponte create a shared parenting plan, that is not what occurred in this matter. Piwinski v. Piwinski (March 18, 1999), 8th Dist. No. 73956 (and cases cited therein). The alteration to which Appellant directs this Court is not substantive, nor does it materially affect the parties or the children. Appellee left the date open in her plan. The court, instead of randomly picking a date for the plan to end, simply stated that it retained jurisdiction to decide this issue if it comes up in the future. This Court declines to treat such a ministerial change as if it were the creation of a new shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(b) permits implicit consideration of a filed shared parenting plan when the court decides whether the plan serves the children’s best interests.

Wilson v. Wetter, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2002) · filed 2002-06-17(D)(1)(b)

R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(b) states, "[i]f the court does not determine that any filed plan * * * is in the best interest of the children, the court shall not approve any plan." ... The domestic relations court implicitly considered the shared parenting plan in its decision and did not abuse its discretion.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(i) does not require a magistrate to review the specific terms of a jointly filed shared parenting plan with the parties.

Roberts v. Roberts, Unpublished Decision (6-25-2002) · filed 2002-06-25(D)(1)(i)

Accordingly, based upon these facts, Lisa cannot claim that she was not afforded ample opportunity before the magistrate to discuss any alleged misunderstanding of the parties' agreement, 6 and the statutory directives relating to the court's review of a shared parenting plan do not require a magistrate to review the specific terms of a jointly filed agreement with the parties.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(B) gives the court discretion to approve a shared parenting plan.

Burson v. Burson, Unpublished Decision (8-5-2002) · filed 2002-08-05(D)(1)(B)

In addition, R.C. § 3109.04 (D)(1)(B) specifically grants discretion to the Court as to approval of a shared parenting plan. In light of the above and the evidence we must reject this fourth Assignment of Error.

If no filed shared parenting plan serves the child’s best interest, the court may direct the parents to submit changes to their plans and select a revised plan.

Giaquinta v. Anderson, Unpublished Decision (2-24-2003) · filed 2003-02-24(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii), if the court determines that no filed plan is in the best interest of the child, the court may order each parent to submit appropriate changes to his or both of the filed plans to meet the court's objections. In the instant case, the court did exactly what the statute allows the court to do. The court asked both parties to submit proposed plans, and the court selected the plan which most closely complied with the statute.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) gives courts broad discretion to accept, reject, or change proposed shared parenting plan modifications, or terminate shared parenting, based on the child’s best interests.

Dobran v. Dobran, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2003) · filed 2003-03-24(E)(2)

The court thus has broad power to accept, reject, or change proposed modifications to a shared parenting agreement, or to terminate the agreement altogether, in the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(J) requires a court-approved plan for shared parenting; equal parenting time alone does not authorize a court to declare a shared parenting arrangement on its own.

Prusia v. Prusia, Unpublished Decision (4-18-2003) · filed 2003-04-18(J)

To address this disparity, the court treated the parties' equal time with their child as a shared parenting arrangement. It used the shared parenting form to calculate the father's child support obligation, even though the court knew that Gregory was named legal custodian and residential parent. This was an abuse of discretion. It was not proper to calculate child support in this case using the shared parenting form. This case does not concern shared parenting, 6 and the court cannot declare it as such on its own.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) is substantially satisfied without explicit review of a proposed shared parenting plan when the court finds shared parenting itself is not in the children's best interest.

Winkler v. Winkler, Unpublished Decision (5-13-2003) · filed 2003-05-13(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Given the trial court's finding that a shared parenting plan was not in the children's best interest, the trial court's explicit review of defendant's proposed shared parenting plan would have been futile. Under the circumstances, the trial court substantially complied with R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances before a court may modify parenting time under a shared parenting order when the change would substantially alter the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Bauer v. Bauer, Unpublished Decision (5-19-2003) · filed 2003-05-19(E)(1)(a)

We accordingly hold that R.C. 3109.04 (E), and not R.C. 3109.04 (B), governs the modification of a prior order allocating parental rights and responsibilities, including the modification of parenting time under a shared parenting order. Because Brian's proposed modification of the shared parenting plan sought to substantially change the allocation of the parties' parental rights and responsibilities, we find that R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) applies. The trial court was therefore correct in applying this section and in requiring Brian to first prove a change of circumstances.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a) permits a court to adopt a shared parenting plan proposed by either parent if the court finds the plan serves the children’s best interests, regardless of whether the other parent agrees to its terms.

Haas v. Bauer · filed 2004-02-04(D)(1)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(i) through (iii), when either parent or both parents file a motion to adopt a shared parenting plan, accompanied by a proposed plan, it is within the trial court’s discretion to accept the shared parenting plan, so long as the trial court finds that the shared parenting plan is in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan at any time only if the modification is in the children’s best interests.

Tonti v. Tonti, Unpublished Decision (5-18-2004) · filed 2004-05-18(E)(2)(b)

Although R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b) provides the trier of fact authority to modify the terms of the shared parenting plan at any time, the statute clearly states that such modification must be in the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) governs the decision whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest and does not apply to modification of an existing, unappealed shared-parenting plan.

Kinney v. Kinney, Unpublished Decision (6-3-2004) · filed 2004-06-03(F)(2)

However, R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2) states that this particular section is to be used "[i]n determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the child." This decision was already made by the court in the November 29, 2001 order implementing a shared parenting plan for Logan. The implementation of that shared parenting plan was not appealed. Therefore, R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2) is inapplicable here.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests before a court may modify a prior shared parenting decree.

Fox v. Fox, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2004) · filed 2004-06-28(E)(1)(a)

This provision prohibits the court from altering a prior order absent a showing that a change in circumstances has occurred and that modification of the previous custody order would be in the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits modification of a shared parenting plan without a change in circumstances when the changes do not reallocate parental rights.

Hunter v. Bachman, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2004) · filed 2004-09-29(E)(2)(b)

None of the modifications to the shared parenting plan actually reallocate parental rights as they do not change the status of each parent as residential parent and legal custodian. Accordingly, the court could properly modify the plan under R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b), and did not need to find a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs a proposed shared parenting plan modification that substantially changes the allocation of parental rights, including a school-parent designation that significantly shifts possession time.

In Re Jacobberger, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004) · filed 2004-12-17(E)(1)(a)

Appellant's request to modify the shared parenting plan to designate him as the residential parent for school purposes would substantially change the allocation of the parties' parental rights. The modification asked for by appellant would significantly decrease appellee's time with the child by allowing appellant possession of the child during the entire school week, thereby reducing appellee's possession time to weekend visits. Because the modification requested by appellant would substantially change the allocation of the parties' parental rights, the juvenile court properly applied R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan on its own motion or a parent’s request when the modification serves the children’s best interest.

Tener v. Tener-Tucker, Unpublished Decision (7-25-2005) · filed 2005-07-25(E)(2)(b)

Modifications of shared parenting agreements are governed by R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2). The court may modify the terms of a shared parenting plan upon its own motion, or upon the request of one or both parents if it determines that the modifications are in the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)-(b). ... The court's decision to modify the shared parenting plan in the best interest of the children was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) permits a court to request changes to a proposed shared parenting plan, but does not authorize the court to create its own plan.

Dasilva v. Dasilva, Unpublished Decision (10-17-2005) · filed 2005-10-17(D)(1)(a)(iii)

The court possessed the authority to ask appellant to resubmit a plan with appropriate changes. If the plan remained unsatisfactory, the court may have proceeded as if the requests for shared parenting had not been made. However, the court cannot create its own shared parenting plan. Thus the court violated the express procedures set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii).

A court may deny a proposed modification of a shared parenting plan when the modification would not serve the children’s best interests, without deciding whether circumstances have changed.

Taralla v. Taralla, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2005) · filed 2005-12-15(E)(1)(a)

The trial court in the case sub judice found both that appellant had failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances and that the best interests of Joseph and Damien would not be served by a modification of the shared parenting plan. As we find the latter issue dispositive, we need not analyze the "change in circumstances" issue in this opinion. ... Accordingly, our review of the record in the matter sub judice does not indicate that appellate reversal under the facts and circumstances presented would be warranted against the magistrate who observed the evidentiary proceedings firsthand and the trial judge who originally reviewed the subsequent objections.

Section 3109.04 prohibits a court from creating its own shared parenting plan when neither parent’s submitted plan is satisfactory; the court may seek changes to a submitted plan or decline shared parenting.

Kayrouz v. Kayrouz, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2006) · filed 2006-01-17(D)(1)(a)(ii), (D)(1)(b)

Because the court-ordered plan was one of its creation and had not been submitted by either party, it was in violation of R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(ii) and (b).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a) requires a court to review proposed shared parenting plans and decide whether a plan serves the children’s best interests, including when both parents file plans or file one jointly.

Yasinow v. Yasinow, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2006) · filed 2006-03-23(D)(1)(a)

In determining an award of custody when a shared parenting plan has been filed by both parents, the trial court must review the plans and determine whether either is in the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(ii). The same requirement of review is imposed upon the court if the parties file a joint shared parenting plan. R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(i).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) directs courts choosing between shared parenting plans to consider the relevant best-interest factors.

Williams v. Carlton, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006) · filed 2006-03-31(F)(1)

In the instant case, the trial court (and magistrate) considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(a)-(j) and made findings under the relevant factors. ... The record supports these findings.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires consideration of the shared parenting factors, but a court may adopt a plan without following the guardian ad litem's recommendation when evidence supports its findings.

Peoples v. Peoples, Unpublished Decision (11-27-2006) · filed 2006-11-27(F)(2)

The trial court cited R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2) as setting forth the various factors a trial court should consider in adopting a proposed parenting plan. ... The trial court made findings regarding each of the factors, but did not follow the guardian ad litem's recommendations. The record contains evidence supporting the court's findings. {¶ 35} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting appellee's proposed shared parenting plan.

When only one parent submits a shared parenting plan, § 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) does not permit the court to create its own plan if the submitted plan remains unsatisfactory.

Robinette v. Robinette, 88445 (5-24-2007) · filed 2007-05-24(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Should the party fail to make the proposed changes, or the court is not satisfied with the changes submitted, the statute does not authorize the court to create its own shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04 permits a shared parenting order only if a parent requests shared parenting and files a plan, the court finds the plan serves the children’s best interests, and the approved plan is incorporated into a final decree; otherwise, the court must designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian.

Frey v. Frey, 5-06-36 (6-18-2007) · filed 2007-06-18(A)(1), (D)

Before a court can order a shared parenting plan, at least one of the parents must request shared parenting and that same parent must also file a shared parenting plan. Additionally, the court must determine such a plan is in the best interest of the children and incorporate the approved plan into a final shared parenting decree. Otherwise, the court must designate one of the parents as the residential parent and legal custodian of the children.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires a court that objects to a submitted shared parenting plan to request changes from a party rather than modify the plan itself.

Clark v. Clark, 14-06-56 (10-29-2007) · filed 2007-10-29(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Rather than requesting Thomas to modify the shared parenting plan in order to meet its objections, as it was statutorily required to do, the trial court sua sponte modified the shared parenting plan and ordered Rena to pay Thomas child support. Although Rena did not raise this issue, such a modification of the shared parenting plan was clearly contrary to law and, therefore, constituted plain error.

Section 3109.04(E) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan on its own motion or at a parent’s request when the modification serves the child’s best interest.

Kemp v. Kemp, 2007-Ca-00045 (11-5-2007) · filed 2007-11-05(E)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) permits a court to modify the terms of a plan for shared parenting upon its own motion at any time, or upon the request of one or both parents if the court determines the modifications are in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(D) governing proposed shared parenting orders does not apply when no shared parenting agreement is before the court.

Schoolcraft v. Eiler, 2007-Ca-00031 (11-26-2007) · filed 2007-11-26(D)

For this reason, we find R.C. 3109.04 (D) dealing with proposed shared parenting orders does not apply here, because the record indicates there was not a shared-parenting agreement before the court.

Section 3109.04(A)(2) requires at least one parent to request shared parenting and file a proposed plan before a court may order shared parenting.

Downey v. Downey, Unpublished Decision (11-28-2007) · filed 2007-11-28(A)(2)

Wife did not move for shared parenting and propose a written plan as an attachment thereto. Thus, the trial court was without authority to approve or order shared parenting.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) permits, but does not require, a court to order the other parent to file a shared parenting plan when one parent has requested shared parenting.

Koller v. Koller, 22328 (2-22-2008) · filed 2008-02-22(D)(1)(a)(iii)

We further agree with Tammy that, while R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii) provides that the trial court "may" order the other parent to file a plan for shared parenting, there is no requirement that it do so, as James suggests.

Section 3109.04 requires a trial court to consider the best-interest factors in divisions (F)(1) and (F)(2) when evaluating a proposed shared parenting plan.

Dietrich v. Dietrich, 90565 (11-6-2008) · filed 2008-11-06(F)(1), (F)(2)

In doing so, a trial court is required to consider whether a proposed shared parenting plan is in the best interest of the children pursuant to the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) and 3109.04 (F)(2).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan term concerning a child’s passport based on the child’s best interest without requiring a change in circumstances.

Osdell v. Osdell, Ca2007-10-123 (11-10-2008) · filed 2008-11-10(E)(2)(b)

Based on the language of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b), as well as the court's analysis in Fisher , the trial court should have based its decision on whether to enjoin or restrict the passport based on the best interest of the child, and not whether there had been an adequate change in circumstances since the shared plan went into effect in 2004.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan when the modification is in the child’s best interest.

Ryan v. Ryan, 07-Be-48 (12-4-2008) · filed 2008-12-04(E)(2)(b)

Thus, under this section, the trial court could have modified the shared parenting plan if it found that it was in Brendan's best interest to do so.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to modify the implementation terms of a shared parenting plan, including parenting time, based on the children’s best interests when the residential-parent designation stays the same.

Sanders-Bechtol v. Bechtol, 5-08-08 (1-20-2009) · filed 2009-01-20(E)(2)(b)

According to the distinction articulated in Fisher , the Amended Shared Parenting Plan only changes the implementation of the plan. The Amended Shared Parenting Plan does not change the designation of who is the residential parent. Accordingly, we find that the trial court was required to apply the standard as articulated in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b) to determine if modification of the Shared Parenting Plan was in the best interests of the children.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(i) permits a court to deny shared parenting and proceed as though no motion was made when a shared-parenting plan is not in the children’s best interest.

Huelskamp v. Huelskamp · filed 2009-12-28(D)(1)(a)(i)

Under R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(i), the trial court may deny a motion for shared parenting and proceed as if the motion had not been made if it determines that such a plan is not in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(i) does not allow a court to unilaterally change a jointly submitted shared parenting plan without finding the changed portion contrary to the children’s best interests and giving the parents an opportunity to revise it.

Collins v. Collins · filed 2011-05-16(D)(1)(a)(i)

The trial court unilaterally changed the submitted plan without determining that the changed portion was not in the children’s best interest and without allowing the parties the opportunity to make the appropriate change.