Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

Section 3109.04(E) requires a court to find that modifying a shared parenting decree or plan is in the child’s best interest.

Hart v. Hart · filed 2011-05-25(E)

Under R.C. 3109.04(E), a court shall not modify a shared parenting decree or a shared parenting plan unless it finds that the modification is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04 permits a court to reject shared parenting when the statutory best-interest factors support finding that shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest.

Strauss v. Strauss · filed 2011-08-04(F)(1), (F)(2)

Our review of the record indicates that the trial court considered all of the relevant factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (F)(2) and that there is competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that designating Wife as the residential parent and legal custodian of P.S. is in the child’s best interest. We conclude that the court did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner by finding the presumption in favor of shared parenting, in the traditional sense, was rebutted by the evidence.

Communication difficulties do not bar shared parenting under § 3109.04(F)(2)(a) when the evidence shows the parents can overcome them.

Eddy v. Eddy · filed 2011-08-24(F)(2)(a)

Based on the totality of the factors involved in this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellee’s motion for shared parenting and adopting his shared parenting plan. Many factors weighed evenly as to the parties. And while the parties have some communication issues to work out, the evidence did not indicate that these issues were too severe to overcome.

A guardian ad litem’s recommendation is one of several factors a court considers when deciding whether to adopt a shared parenting plan.

MacDonald v. MacDonald · filed 2011-10-20(F)(1) and (2)

We note that the GAL’s recommendation is just one of many factors to consider pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires a court that finds no submitted shared parenting plan in a child’s best interest to have each parent submit appropriate changes to the plan rather than make the changes itself.

Elson v. Plokhooy · filed 2011-06-20(D)(1)(a)(iii)

On the other hand, if the trial court found that no plan was in the child’s best interest, it erred by failing to order each parent to submit appropriate changes to Frank’s plan to meet its’ objections.

Section 3109.04 permits a court to reject shared parenting when the evidence supports an allocation of parental rights that serves the children’s best interests.

Herb v. Herb · filed 2012-03-01(F)(1)

Nothing in the Eddy case demonstrates the trial court here failed to further the best interest of these children by refusing to order shared parenting.

A modification to a shared parenting plan that substantially changes parental rights is governed by § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Berger v. Feng · filed 2012-03-15(E)(1)(a)

Where, however, the modification involves a substantial change in parental rights, we apply R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to change the residential-parent designation for school placement while retaining both parents as residential parents, if the change serves the child’s best interest.

King v. King · filed 2012-04-09(E)(2)(b)

This Court has previously determined that R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) applies when the domestic relations court modifies the designation of a residential parent for school purposes, but otherwise maintains both parents as residential parents with the same parental rights and responsibilities. ... However, we agree with the domestic relations court that designating Jeff the residential parent for purposes of school placement is in S.K.’s best interest because it results in greater long term stability.

Section 3109.04(D)(1) requires a request for shared parenting and a submitted shared parenting plan before a court may order shared parenting.

Mason v. Myles · filed 2012-08-03(D)(1)

Neither party requested shared parenting and submitted a shared parenting plan, which is a prerequisite to such an order.

Section 3109.04(E) permits modification of a shared-parenting agreement only when the change serves the children’s best interests and, without parental agreement or consent, its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing their environment.

Brocklehurst v. Paul · filed 2012-09-21(E)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) provides a court may not modify a shared parenting agreement unless it finds that the change is in the best interest of the children and, if the parents do not agree or consent, that the harm likely to be caused by the change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the children.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) permits, but does not require, a court to allow amendments to a proposed shared parenting plan when the original plan is not in the child’s best interest.

Heilman v. Heilman · filed 2012-11-05(D)(1)(a)(iii)

R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) provides that the trial court “may” allow the parties to submit amendments to their proposed shared parenting plan if the trial court determines that the originally proposed plan is not in the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04 permits a court to reject a shared parenting plan when the parents’ inability to work together makes shared parenting contrary to the children’s best interests.

Bennett v. Bennett · filed 2012-12-07(D)(1)(b)

Although there was evidence to support Mr. Bennett’s assertion that both parents have a “loving, caring, and nurturing relationship” with the children, the decision to award shared custody focuses as much on the parents’ ability and willingness to work with one another as on their relationships with the children. Based on the evidence presented in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that shared parenting was not a viable option.

When each parent files a separate shared parenting plan, the court must review both plans and determine whether either serves the child’s best interest.

In re R.L.C. · filed 2012-12-13(D)(1)(a)(ii)

If each parent files a separate plan for shared parenting, the trial court must review the plans to determine whether either is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify child support terms in a shared parenting plan on its own motion at any time if the change serves the children’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Heidnik · filed 2013-03-29(E)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), a court may modify the terms of the shared parenting plan at any time, upon its own motion, provided the modification is in the best interest of the children.

A court may alter a shared parenting plan’s effective date and designate a school district when the record supports those choices and the plan requires the parents to live near each other.

Harding v. Harding · filed 2013-10-21(D)(1)(a)(ii)

By balancing the success of shared parenting, the shared parenting plans of both parties, and the necessity for finality in divorce cases, against appellant's desire to change her profession and only go to school in Cincinnati, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in altering the effective date of the shared parenting plan. Because the shared parenting plan necessitated the parties to be geographically close to each other, the order for the children to attend Olentangy schools in Delaware County was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits modification of a shared parenting plan only if the court determines that the modification is in the children’s best interests; reallocating expenses based on parental income percentages without that determination does not satisfy the statute.

Dietrich v. Dietrich · filed 2014-10-29(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) only permits a trial court to modify a shared parenting plan “if the court determines that the modifications are in the best interest of the children.” Having reviewed the record and the court’s judgment entry, we cannot conclude that the court actually determined that the modifications it ordered were in the children’s best interests. For that reason, we must conclude that the court failed to comply with R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) and erred by ordering the modification of the parties’ shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to change a shared-parenting plan’s designation of a parent’s residence for school purposes based on the children’s best interests, without finding a change of circumstances, when both parents otherwise retain the same parental rights and responsibilities.

Fritsch v. Fritsch · filed 2014-12-05(E)(2)(b)

Therefore, we hold that the trial court in this case correctly applied the best-interest-of-the child test under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b). The court did not have to determine that a change of circumstances had occurred to modify the designation of the residential parent for school purposes.

Section 3109.04 requires the court to decide whether a proposed shared parenting plan serves the child’s best interest and prohibits approval if it does not.

Barton v. Barton · filed 2015-12-09

If the court does not determine that any filed shared parenting plan is in the best interest of the child, the court shall not approve any plan.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law when a court rejects a proposed shared parenting plan, but a parent’s effective withdrawal of the plan removes that requirement.

In re K.R. · filed 2016-05-02(D)(1)(a)(iii)

While R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires the juvenile court to enter findings of facts and conclusions of law as to the reasons for rejecting a proposed shared parenting plan, because Mother specifically testified that shared parenting with Father was no longer feasible, thus effectively withdrawing her request, we find the juvenile court did not err by failing to approve Mother's proposed shared parenting plan, nor did the juvenile court err by ... failing to give its reasoning for not approving such plan.

When both parents submit shared parenting plans and the court adopts neither, § 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining why it rejected both plans.

Dick v. Dick · filed 2017-03-24(D)(1)(a)(ii)

As both of the parties proposed shared parenting plans and neither was adopted, the trial court was required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why it rejected both plans.

Section 3109.04 requires a parent to submit a shared parenting plan, but failure to submit one does not render a shared parenting order void.

In re A.A.V. · filed 2018-01-12

While R.C. 3109.04 does require the submission of a shared parenting plan by a parent, we find no case law to indicate that the failure to do so renders an order of shared parenting void.

A change to the amount or schedule of parenting time in a shared parenting plan is governed by the best-interest standard in subsection (E)(2)(b) when it does not change the designation of residential parent and legal custodian.

Suwareh v. Nwankwo · filed 2018-09-17(E)(2)(b)

When a parent seeks to modify the terms of the shared parenting plan to change the amount or schedule of parenting time, as opposed to seeking to modify the designation of residential parent and legal custodian of the children, the best-interest standard in R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) controls the analysis.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan’s allocation of uninsured health care costs on its own only if the modification is in the children’s best interest.

Batcher v. Pierce · filed 2018-09-19(E)(2)(b)

Notwithstanding, this Court has held that a trial court can sua sponte alter the terms of a shared parenting plan, including the provisions detailing the allocation of uninsured or unreimbursed health care costs, “if the court determines that the modifications are in the best interest of the children[.]” See Dietrich v. Dietrich, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26919, 2014-Ohio-4782, ¶ 27, quoting R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b); see also DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535, 540 (1997); R.C. 3119.30(A); R.C. 3119.29(A)(3) (defining health care); R.C. 3119.32(D). ... However, it does not appear from the trial court’s judgment entry that the trial court determined that the modification was in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to modify the terms of a shared parenting plan on its own motion at any time when the modification serves the children’s best interests.

Hartman v. Hartman · filed 2019-01-17(E)(2)(b)

Contrary to appellant’s arguments on appeal, the domestic relations court had jurisdiction to make the subject modifications “upon its own motion at any time” pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b). In this case, it is apparent from the record that the trial court believed it was in the best interests of the children to modify the terms of the original parenting plan in order to provide the parties with additional, more specific instructions regarding their communications and expectations.

In deciding whether shared parenting is in a child’s best interest, the court must consider the parents’ ability to cooperate and encourage contact, any abuse history, their proximity, and any guardian ad litem recommendation.

Woodbury v. Woodbury · filed 2018-05-25(F)(2)

Additionally, in determining whether shared parenting is the best interest of a child, the court shall consider: the ability of the parents to cooperate and make decisions jointly with respect to the children; the ability of each parent to encourage the sharing of love, affection, and contact between the child and the other parent; any history of, or potential for, child abuse, spouse abuse, other domestic violence, or parental kidnapping by either parent; the geographic proximity of the parents to each other and the practical considerations of shared parenting; and the recommendation of the guardian ad litem of the child, if the child has a guardian ad litem. R.C. 3109.04(F)(2).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify parenting-time terms of a shared parenting plan in the children’s best interest without a showing of changed circumstances.

Nemitz v. Nemitz · filed 2019-02-01(E)(2)(b)

This court has held that a modification of parenting time under this statutory section does not require a showing of a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04 does not authorize a court to impose a shared parenting agreement when the parents maintain separate motions for legal custody and oppose a shared parenting plan.

In re M.B. · filed 2019-04-03

A plain reading of R.C. 3109.04 indicates that a trial court has no authority to impose a shared parenting agreement between parties who maintain separate motions for legal custody of their child, and in fact oppose the imposition of a shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) applies a best-interest standard to modification of a shared parenting plan, including a change to the child’s residential parent for school purposes.

Mack v. Mack · filed 2019-06-17(E)(2)(b)

When a parent seeks to modify the terms of the shared parenting plan, such as the case here, the best-interest standard in R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) applies.

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.

Wilcox v. Iiams · filed 2019-07-29(E)(2)(b)

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), the trial court was not required to find that a change in circumstances had occurred in order to issue these modifications.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires courts deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interests to consider the general best-interest factors and the additional factors specific to shared parenting, including the parents’ ability to cooperate and make decisions jointly.

Grover v. Dourson · filed 2019-06-24(F)(2)

When determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the children, the trial court must consider the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), as well as the ability of the parents to cooperate and make decisions jointly; the ability of each parent to encourage love, affection, and contact with the other parent; any history of, or potential for, child abuse, domestic violence, or parental kidnapping by either parent; the geographic proximity of the parents to each other; and the recommendation of the GAL. R.C. 3109.04(F)(2).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) permits a court to require changes to a proposed shared parenting plan in accordance with a guardian ad litem’s recommendation that the court finds to be in the child’s best interest.

Lindsey v. Lindsey · filed 2019-12-02(D)(1)(a)(ii)

In finding the GAL’s shared-parenting plan in C.L.’s best interest, the trial court, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii), essentially objected to husband’s original plan and ordered the parties to submit appropriate changes in accordance with the GAL’s recommendation.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) does not authorize a court to modify and adopt a party’s shared parenting plan; the court must have a party make the changes and resubmit the plan.

DeGrant v. DeGrant · filed 2020-01-13(D)(1)(a)(iii)

A trial court does not have authority to modify and adopt a shared parenting plan. If the court wishes to make changes to a plan submitted by one of the parties, the appropriate procedure is for the court to order a party to make the changes and resubmit the plan.

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

Blumenauer v. Martino · filed 2020-01-27(E)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), the court may modify the terms of the shared parenting plan if the modifications are in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) requires a court modifying a shared parenting plan to consider the children's best interests, including when setting religious holiday parenting time.

Suwareh v. Nwankwo · filed 2020-12-28(E)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), the trial court must consider the best interests of the children when modifying the terms of the shared parenting plan. ... In applying the law to the facts, we find that the trial court's decision was in the best interest of the children.

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

Schorr v. Schorr · filed 2020-12-29(E)(2)(b)

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), a trial court, "on its own initiative or at the request of one or both parents," may modify the terms of a shared-parenting plan when it finds modification in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) does not authorize a court to revise a proposed shared parenting plan on its own; the court must follow the statutory procedure for obtaining changes from the parents.

Mullaji v. Mollagee · filed 2020-09-28(D)(1)(a)(iii)

The trial court ordered shared parenting, but made modifications to the plan proposed by Mr. Mullaji without following the procedure described in R.C. 3109.04(D). This Court agrees that the trial court erred in doing so.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) requires a court modifying a shared parenting plan to assess the child's best interest at the time of the decision, even when the parents previously agreed to the plan.

Rankin v. Rankin · filed 2021-06-10(E)(2)(b)

Having reviewed Drew's contentions, we do not believe the trial court "relegate[d] the best interest standard * * * to that of a contract interpretation and/or enforcement," or "fail[ed] to determine the child's best interest at the time of trial."

When neither proposed shared-parenting plan is in the children’s best interest, the court may order the parents to change their plans.

Hatfield v. Hatfield · filed 2022-03-11(D)(1)(a)(ii)

If neither plan is in the children’s best interest, the court can order changes to the plans submitted by the parents.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires a court deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest to consider additional factors, including the parents’ ability to cooperate and to encourage the child’s relationship with each parent.

Chaney v. Chaney · filed 2022-05-02(F)(2)

When determining whether shared parenting is in a child's best interest, the trial court must consider the additional factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(2).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to modify the parenting-time terms of a shared-parenting plan when the modification is in the children’s best interest.

Sharif v. Sharif · filed 2022-08-17(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) provides that the terms of the plan for shared parenting may be modified so long as the modification is in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(E) allows modification of an approved shared parenting plan when its specified circumstances are established.

Kulis v. Kulis · filed 2022-09-06(E)

A trial court may modify an approved shared parenting plan pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) or (2). However, Ms. Kezar did not reference R.C. 3109.04(E) or purport to establish the specific circumstances set forth therein.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) permits shared parenting when evidence supports the best-interest and shared-parenting findings, even if the parents currently communicate poorly.

Woodford v. Woodford · filed 2022-10-13(F)(1), (F)(2)

But the court adopted proposed findings of fact with respect to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) that were supported by record evidence (notably including Chad's own testimony, the testimony of Dr. Tener, and the recommendation of the GAL), and Chad has not specifically identified which of those findings he alleges to constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion. ... The fact that a denial of shared parenting does not constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion does not in itself demonstrate that a grant of shared parenting in similar circumstances is an abuse of discretion. ... Based on this record, the trial court was entitled to find that the parties were capable of joint decision-making if ordered to do so, and was entitled to rely on Danielle's recent behavioral progress. The court's conclusion that in determining that sole custody was not required is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unlawful, and its award of shared parenting is similarly not an abuse of the trial court's wide discretion over such matters.

Section 3109.04(D) requires the trial court to consider both parents’ shared parenting requests before making a final custody determination.

Hughey v. Hughey · filed 2022-10-19(D)

Consequently, for this reason alone we sustain appellant’s assignment of error, reverse the trial court’s custody determination and remand the matter to allow the court to consider both shared parenting requests.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e)’s mental-health factor does not apply when the parents enter an agreed shared parenting plan.

Buskirk v. Buskirk · filed 2023-01-12(F)(1)(e)

The trial court was not required to determine the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in this case because Husband and Wife entered into an agreed shared parenting plan. Thus, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(e) does not apply.

When only one parent submits a shared parenting plan, the court may ask that parent to revise it but may not revise the plan itself.

In re O.G.H. · filed 2023-05-10(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Rather, the proper procedure would have been to request that Father modify the plan based on the court’s concerns, and then the court could enter it if it found it in the best interest of the child. Therefore, we hold that the trial court committed reversible error when it violated R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii), sustain Mother’s first assignment of error, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the statutory requirements.

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

Watson v. Watson · filed 2023-10-12(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) provides that a court may modify a shared parenting plan on its own motion or by request of one or both parents “if the court determines that the modifications are in the best interest of the children.”

When neither parent files a written shared parenting request and plan, the court must designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian rather than create its own shared parenting plan.

Arroyo v. Walkingstick · filed 2023-11-13(A)(1)

Here, neither party submitted a proposed shared parenting plan. ... The court-ordered plan was the court’s own creation. It was, therefore, in violation of R.C. 3109.04.

A guardian ad litem’s recommendation for shared parenting is one of several factors the court considers when deciding the children’s best interests.

Asbanyoli v. Haddadin · filed 2024-01-18(F)(2)(e)

Upon review, we cannot find that the trial court’s determination as to child custody and residential parent was an abuse of discretion. While it is true that the GAL recommended that the parties have shared parenting over the minor children, this is one of many statutory factors to consider in making a custody determination.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) permits a court to reject shared parenting as contrary to a child’s best interests when the parents cannot cooperate or make decisions jointly.

K.L.F. v. E.A.B. · filed 2024-03-06(F)(2)

In rejecting shared parenting, the most telling and obvious factor here was the parties’ inability to cooperate and make decisions jointly with respect to the child. The record is replete with instances of vitriolic behavior by both parties to the point where the parties do not have the ability to cooperate at this time.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits modification of a shared parenting plan upon a best-interest finding without requiring a change of circumstances.

Wagoner v. Wagoner · filed 2024-03-18(E)(2)(b)

Thus, a modification to a shared parenting plan under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) only requires a best-interest finding in support of modification and does not require a finding of a change of circumstances, as is the case with a modification to a shared parenting decree under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(2) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan, including its child support amount, when the change is in the child's best interests.

Sherrick v. Page · filed 2024-07-08(E)(2)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(a) provides that a trial court may reject the parties’ modification of the terms of a shared parenting plan approved by the court if they are not in the best interests of the child. Further, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), the court may modify the terms of such plan “upon its own motion” or at the request of one of the parents when it is in the best interests of the child. A court can modify “the amount of child support owed” under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2).

A parent’s alleged apathy toward a child does not necessarily make a shared parenting plan contrary to the child’s best interests.

Adante v. Adante · filed 2024-11-12(D)(1)(b)

Marcie’s argument is that Richard’s apathy toward the minor child, evidenced by his lack of relationship with the child, voluntary forfeiture of parenting time, and disregard for the child’s health renders his request for shared parenting contrary to the child’s best interests. We disagree.

Section 3109.04(F) supplies best-interest factors for deciding whether to accept a proposed shared parenting plan, a decision reviewed for abuse of discretion.

J.S. v. A.S. · filed 2024-12-26(F)

When either parent presents a shared parenting plan, it is within the discretion of the court to accept it as long as the court determines the plan is in the best interest of the children. Id. at ¶ 21. The trial court engaged in a detailed review of the best-interest factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04(F). ... Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered a shared parenting plan.

A court may modify a medical decision-making term of a shared-parenting plan when the modification is in the child’s best interest, without finding a change in circumstances.

S.S. v. T.M. · filed 2025-05-22(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04(E) governs the modification of a shared-parenting decree or plan. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) governs the requirements for the modification of “a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities.” Such a modification requires a finding that (1) there has been a change in circumstances of the child, residential parent, or either parent, (2) the modification is in the child’s best interest, and (3) the benefits resulting from the change will outweigh any harm. Whereas division (E)(2) allows the modification of the terms of shared-parenting plan. For the court to modify under this section, it must find that the modification is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(G) requires a shared parenting plan to be filed before a court may adopt it; emailing the plan to the court does not satisfy that requirement, and the other parent must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.

Silmi v. Assad · filed 2026-03-16(G)

“[s]ending a shared parenting plan to the court via email would not satisfy the requirements of R.C. 3109.04(G).” ... “If a shared parenting plan is not filed, the court shall not adopt one.” ... Under the circumstances here, we conclude that Assad was deprived of due process because she did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to respond to Silmi’s proposed shared parenting plan.

A change to primary and secondary residential-parent labels in a shared parenting plan is a plan-term modification under § 3109.04(E)(2)(b) when both parents retain equal residential-parent status.

McKivitz v. Waller · filed 2026-04-30(E)(2)(b)

As stated in the prior assigned errors, the court’s change in labeling Father as the “primary residential parent” and Mother the “secondary residential parent” was a change in a term of the Shared Parenting Plan governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b).

Section 3109.04 permits a court to adopt one parent’s separately filed shared parenting plan without obtaining both parents’ signatures.

Louden v. Louden · filed 2026-05-29(D)(1)(a)(ii)

First, there is no requirement that the court obtain Husband’s signature on the shared parenting plan that it adopted.

When parental rights and responsibilities are contested, Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining approval of a shared parenting plan and its fit with the children's best interests.

Phillips v. Phillips, Unpublished Decision (1-14-2005) · filed 2005-01-14(D)(1)(a)(ii)-(iii)

When the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities is contested, before approving or adopting a shared parenting plan, the trial court is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii), to determine whether the plan is in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) requires the court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining its approval of a shared parenting plan.

Stroud v. Lyons, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2003) · filed 2003-12-12(D)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii)

However, the trial court failed to enter in the record findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for the approval of appellee's shared parenting plan, in violation of R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the reasons for approving or refusing a shared parenting plan.

In Re Minnick, Unpublished Decision (8-11-2003) · filed 2003-08-11(D)(1)(a)(iii)

However, whether the court approves a shared parenting plan or refuses to order shared parenting, the statute requires the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for the approval or refusal. R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a).

A court must review a jointly filed shared parenting plan and determine whether it is in the children’s best interests.

Evans v. Evans · filed 1995-10-02(D)(1)(a)(i)

In determining an award of custody where a shared parenting plan has been filed jointly by the parties, the trial court must review the plan and determine whether it is in the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04(D)(l)(a)(i).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) does not permit a court to adopt a shared parenting plan of its own creation when both parties submit plans.

Bowen v. Bowen · filed 1999-02-09(D)(1)(a)(ii)

While derived from a plan submitted by plaintiff, the plan adopted by the trial court was nonetheless a product of that court’s own creation. Both parties argue that the court therefore violated the express procedures set forth in R.C. 3109.04(D)(l)(a)(ii). Both parties are correct.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(b) requires a trial court to reject a shared parenting plan if it does not find the plan to be in the children's best interest.

Unger v. Unger, Unpublished Decision (4-12-1999) · filed 1999-04-12(D)(1)(b)

The approval of a SPP is discretionary with the trial court. If the trial court does not determine that the SPP is in the children's best interest, then it shall reject the plan. R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(b).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) allows a court to approve one parent’s shared parenting plan without requiring the other parent to file a plan; difficulties in cooperation do not categorically bar approval when the plan serves the children’s best interests.

Schmidt v. Schmidt, Unpublished Decision (4-19-1999) · filed 1999-04-19(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Here, the trial court did not order appellant to file her own shared parenting plan. This was within the court's discretion. The trial court reviewed the plan proposed by appellee and determined that it was in the best interest of the children. Although there is some evidence of difficulties in cooperation between these parties, we do not find that it is never appropriate to approve a shared parenting plan under such circumstances. The polestar consideration is always the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(G) permits a court to refuse to consider a shared parenting plan filed during trial when the other parent had no advance notice that shared parenting would be an issue.

Creighton v. Creighton, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2000) · filed 2000-02-07(G)

The court ruled that the filing was untimely, as R.C. 3109.04 (G) provides that a shared parenting plan must be filed at least 30 days prior to a hearing on parental rights and responsibilities. ... The instant case is distinguished from Harris, as appellee received no advance notice that shared parenting would be an issue in the case. In fact, the record reflects that prior to trial, the guardian ad litem encouraged both parties to be on a shared parenting plan, which appellee was receptive to, but appellant would not consider. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) does not authorize a trial court to create its own shared-parenting plan when only one parent submits a proposed plan.

Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, Unpublished Decision (12-20-1999) · filed 1999-12-20(D)(1)(a)(iii)

We find the trial court created the shared parenting plan in this matter. It was not submitted by either party and therefore, is in violation of R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) prohibits a court from creating and adopting its own shared parenting plan instead of a plan submitted by a party.

Tyras v. Tyras, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2000) · filed 2000-06-14(D)(1)(a)(ii)

In this case, the court-ordered plan was one created by the court and was not a plan submitted by either party. It was, therefore, a violation of R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(ii).

Section 3109.04(G) governs parents’ filing of shared parenting plans and does not require a trial court to specifically address every filed plan in its written decision.

Jamieson v. Simmons, Unpublished Decision (6-26-2000) · filed 2000-06-26(G)

R.C. 3109.04 (G) sets forth the procedure that the parents should follow when filing a shared parenting plan. It does not place any duties upon the trial court. Therefore, R.C. 3109.04 (G) does not require the trial court to specifically address every shared parenting plan filed by the parties in a written decision.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(b) does not permit a trial court to order shared parenting on its own when neither party requests it.

Davis v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2000) · filed 2000-09-05(D)(1)(b)

By motion dated October 26, 1998, appellant correctly noted that R.C. 3109.04 (D) (1) (b) does not permit the trial court to sua sponte create a shared parenting plan, where neither party requested shared parenting.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) permits a court to reject a proposed shared parenting plan on best interest grounds without making express findings, ordering modifications, or requiring the other parent to submit a plan.

Bruggeman v. Bruggeman, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000) · filed 2000-11-22(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Implicit in the court's custody order is a determination that Gregory's shared parenting plan was not in the best interest of the children. The court is not required to make express findings to support that determination. Neither is it required to order modifications or the other party to submit alternative plans. Those measures are discretionary.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) does not allow a trial court to create its own shared parenting plan when neither parent submitted that plan.

Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2000) · filed 2000-12-15(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Based on our review of the record, we conclude the trial court erred when it created the above shared parenting plan because it was not submitted by either party and therefore, is in violation of R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(iii) requires a trial court denying shared parenting to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining its reasons.

Moauro v. Moauro, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2000) · filed 2000-11-06(D)(1)(iii)

Upon review of the record in this matter, we find that the trial court has failed to comply with our September 20, 1999, Opinion in that it has failed to "enter in the record of the case findings of fact and conclusions of law" as to its reasons for denying appellant's Motion for Shared Parenting. See R.C. 3109.04 (D)(l)(iii).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record explaining approval or refusal of a shared parenting plan; reasons apparent from the record may substantially satisfy that requirement.

Theiss v. Theiss, Unpublished Decision (4-11-2001) · filed 2001-04-11(D)(1)(a)

All of the subdivisions of R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a) require a trial court to enter in the record findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for approving a shared parenting plan or for refusing to order shared parenting. ... This Court notes that substantial compliance with R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii) has been found where the trial court's reasons for approval or denial are apparent from the record. See Hall v. Hall (May 29, 1997), Union App. No. 14-97-03, unreported. The trial court's reasons for approving the shared parenting plan in this case are not apparent from the record. Given the lack of indication in the record that the trial court considered the best interest of the children, this Court reverses and remands for the limited purpose of determining custody.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a) prohibits a court from creating and adopting its own shared parenting plan by modifying a plan submitted by a parent.

Cybulski v. Ramsey, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2001) · filed 2001-06-29(D)(1)(a)

Despite this, the court-ordered shared parenting plan created by the court by adopting appellee's plan and making its own modifications, was in violation of R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a). The court may not create and adopt its own shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(G) allows a judge to accept a shared parenting plan filed less than thirty days before trial if the opposing party has an adequate opportunity to address shared parenting and present relevant evidence at trial.

Hampton-Jones v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (8-9-2001) · filed 2001-08-09(G)

R.C. 3109.04 (G) does not create an inflexible rule requiring all shared parenting plans to be submitted thirty days before trial — a judge has discretion to grant leave to file an untimely plan, as long as due process rights are protected by allowing the opposing party adequate opportunity to address the issue and present relevant evidence at trial.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(b) permits a court to approve a shared parenting plan submitted by a parent but does not authorize the court to initiate shared parenting.

Decker v. Decker, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2001) · filed 2001-09-28(D)(1)(b)

R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(b) gives a trial court discretion to approve a plan submitted by one or both parents. However, the statute does not give the trial court the authority to initiate a shared parenting arrangement.

When both parents submit shared parenting plans, the court may request changes but cannot draft its own plan.

Carnavale v. Carnavale, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2001) · filed 2001-06-29(D)(1)(a)(ii)

When both parents have submitted proposed shared parenting plans, the trial court does not have the authority to draft its own shared parenting plan; therefore, appellant's first assignment of error is well-taken.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law when a court rules on a shared-parenting plan.

White v. White, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2001) · filed 2001-09-26(D)(1)(a)(iii)

R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii) requires the court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in ruling on a shared-parenting plan.

When only one parent requests shared parenting, § 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires the court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining its approval or denial of the proposed plan.

Swain v. Swain, Unpublished Decision (1-6-2005) · filed 2005-01-06(D)(1)(a)(iii)

When only one parent requests shared parenting, R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii) sets forth the specific procedure the trial court should follow. The statute requires the court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law if it approves or denies the parent's shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires a court denying a shared parenting plan to state its reasons; substantial compliance without detailed findings is possible if those reasons are apparent from the record.

Erwin v. Erwin, Unpublished Decision (4-4-2005) · filed 2005-04-04(D)(1)(a)(iii)

However, a trial court may substantially comply with R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii), without providing a detailed analysis, if its reasons for approval or denial of the shared parenting plan are apparent from the record. ... The trial court was required to state its reasons for denying a shared parenting plan pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii). From the trial court's decision and entry, however, we are unable to glean any express rationale for its determinations. Thus, we must conclude that the trial court has not complied with the statutory directive nor has it substantially complied therewith.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) is substantially satisfied when the judgment entry makes the reason and supporting evidence for denying a shared parenting plan apparent, even without separately delineated findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Lopez v. Coleson, Unpublished Decision (10-16-2006) · filed 2006-10-16(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Since this judgment entry is sufficient to permit this court to determine the express reason for the denial of the shared parenting motion, the trial court has substantially complied with R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(iii).

When a court approves one parent’s proposed shared parenting plan, Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) requires it to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining its approval.

Dietrich v. Dietrich, 88168 (5-24-2007) · filed 2007-05-24(D)(1)(a)(ii)

In this case, the court approved and adopted appellee's proposed shared parenting plan, finding that it was in the best interests of the children without making the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(ii).

When parents submit separate shared parenting plans, § 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) permits the court to select one but requires a best-interests determination and recorded findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining approval or rejection.

In Matter of Spence v. Spence, 2007-P-0070 (5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02(D)(1)(a)(ii)

However, R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(ii) expressly requires a trial court to enter in the record findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for approving a shared parenting plan or for refusing to order shared parenting and to make a determination that the shared parenting plan was in the child's best interests. Stroud at ¶ 31, 37.

When parents submit different shared parenting plans, Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) requires the court to review each plan to determine whether either is in the child’s best interest.

Kokoski v. Kokoski · filed 2013-08-19(D)(1)(a)(ii)

Because their proposed plans were different, the court had to “review each plan * * * to determine if either [was] in the best interest of the child[ ].” R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii).

When custody is disputed, a court must take evidence before adopting a shared-parenting plan under § 3109.04(D), and any testimony must be sworn.

Meisner v. Walker · filed 2016-01-21(D)

R.C. 3109.04(D) sets forth the procedures to be used by the court in awarding shared parenting. Although those statutory provisions do not expressly refer to conducting a hearing, this court has previously held that, when the custody of children is disputed, evidence must be taken, and if testimony is taken it must be sworn. ... Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion by adopting Meisner's proposed shared-parenting plan without conducting a hearing.

When parents submit competing shared parenting plans, § 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the approval or rejection of a plan, sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

Bruwier v. Bruwier · filed 2016-10-31(D)(1)(a)(ii)

The trial court failed to articulate any findings of fact or conclusions of law pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) as to why it adopted appellee’s proposed shared parenting plan or how it analyzed the factors contained in R.C. 3109.04(F).

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining approval of a shared parenting plan; substantial compliance requires the reasons to be apparent from the record.

Clifford v. Skaggs · filed 2017-11-03(D)(1)(a)(ii)

R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) does not require a detailed analysis, but to substantially comply with the statute the court’s reasons for approval or denial must be apparent from the record.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining why a court rejects a proposed shared parenting plan as contrary to the children’s best interests.

Zwick v. Zwick · filed 2018-06-11(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Nevertheless, we find the trial court made adequate findings concerning the shared parenting plan to comply with the statutory requirement the court make findings of fact and conclusions of law to justify rejecting the shared parenting plan as not in the best interests of the children.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) requires findings and conclusions explaining rejection of a shared parenting plan, and a court substantially complies when its reasons are apparent from the record.

Woeste v. Woeste · filed 2022-08-15(D)(1)(a)(ii)

However, whether the trial court approves a shared parenting plan or refuses to order shared parenting, R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) requires the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for approving or rejecting a shared parenting plan. ... As discussed below, there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that shared parenting is not in Vivian's best interest, and the trial court's reasons for denying shared parenting are apparent from the record. Thus, the trial court substantially complied with R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, consideration of the child’s best interests, and a finding that the benefits outweigh any harm before a parenting decree is modified.

Lord v. Lord, 89395 (1-24-2008) · filed 2008-01-24(E)(1)(a)

As Dione correctly argues, R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) governs the modification of an existing parenting decree. 2 The court must determine whether a change in circumstances has occurred, analyze best interest of the child factors, and find that the benefits of modification outweigh any harm that the child will experience.

Modification of a shared parenting custody decree requires a change in circumstances and a finding that the modification serves the child’s best interests.

Clark v. Boals, 06ca104 (5-14-2007) · filed 2007-05-14(E)(1)(a)

The threshold issues are: whether there has been a change of circumstance, if so, whether the change services the best interests of the child, and, as applied to this case, whether the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.

A shared parenting plan modification that substantially reallocates parental rights is governed by § 3109.04(E)(1)(a); a change without such reallocation may be made under § 3109.04(E)(2)(b) based on the children’s best interests.

Rodkey v. Rodkey, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2006) · filed 2006-08-24(E)(1)(a)

Where the modification to a shared parenting plan does not involve reallocation of parental rights, the court may modify the plan based upon a finding that the change is in the best interests of the children under R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b). Because the modification herein does involve a substantial change in parental rights, we apply 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 when it determines the modifications are in the children’s best interests.

Weisgerber v. Weisgerber, Unpublished Decision (10-26-2006) · filed 2006-10-26(E)(2)(b)

A review of the trial court's order set forth above demonstrates the trial court did make a determination relative to the best interest of the children. The trial court specifically found, "* * * the Court finds that that [sic] several modifications are necessary and that such modifications are in the best interest of the children." We find while not specifically requested, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making these modifications to the shared parenting plan upon its own motion.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows changes to a shared parenting plan, including the residential parent for school purposes and parenting time, when the changes are in the children's best interests.

Ankney v. Bonos, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2006) · filed 2006-11-15(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b) permits the trial court to "modify the terms of the plan for shared parenting approved by the court and incorporated by it into the shared parenting decree upon its own motion at any time if the court determines that the modifications are in the best interest of the children or upon the request of one or both of the parents under the decree." This court has held that modifications of the residential parent for school purposes, modification of the terms of parenting time, and modification of child support are not reallocation of parental rights, but merely changes in the terms of the shared parenting plan. Hunter at ¶ 11. Thus, the trial court only needs to find that such changes are in the best interests of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) requires a modification of a shared parenting plan’s parenting time to be in the child’s best interest; an entry that gives no indication of that basis does not properly support the modification.

Roop v. Roop, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2006) · filed 2006-06-01(E)(2)(b)

The court shall not make any modification to the plan under this division, unless the modification is in the best interest of the children. {¶ 21} In the case sub judice, there is no indication in the entry that the modification in parenting time is in the best interest of the parties' minor son. The modification is therefore not properly supported.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court modifying a shared parenting plan to find that the modification serves the child's best interest; finding that relocation's benefits outweigh its harms does not substitute for that finding.

Lempner v. Lempner, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2005) · filed 2005-08-31(E)(1)(a)

Nowhere in its judgment entry did it make any finding or conclusion that modification and relocation was in the best interest of B.L. As a result, the trial court's decision does not comport with the mandate of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) that the trial court "shall * * * find * * * that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child." R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

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.

In Re Beekman, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2004) · filed 2004-03-04(E)(2)(b)

Thus, the plain language of the statute permits modification of a shared parenting plan upon a finding that the proposed modifications are in the best interest of the child, and does not require a finding that the child's circumstances have changed since the prior decree.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a substantive change in the circumstances of the child or residential parent, and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, before a prior custody order can be changed to shared parenting.

Buckingham v. Buckingham, Unpublished Decision (4-16-2004) · filed 2004-04-16(E)(1)(a)

This means that in order to allow shared parenting, the trial court must find a change of "substance" in the circumstances of either the child or residential parent and that modification is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a finding of changed circumstances before a court modifies a shared parenting arrangement.

In the Matter of Kutz, Unpublished Decision (6-9-2003) · filed 2003-06-09(E)(1)(a)

However, before the shared parenting is modified, there needs to be a finding by the domestic relations division that a change of circumstances has occurred. See Bauer v. Bauer , Clermont App. No. CA2002-10-083, 2003-Ohio-2552 ; see R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). ... We sustain Robert's second and third assignments of error as they pertain to the probate court granting guardianship of the person of the children to the grandparents and remand for the domestic relations division to determine whether a change of circumstance has occurred.

A parent seeking to modify a shared parenting plan bears the burden of proving that the requested modification is in the child’s best interest.

Harbottle v. Harbottle, Unpublished Decision (9-18-2002) · filed 2002-09-18(E)(1)(a)

By its provisions, R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) also places the burden of proof upon the party wishing to modify the shared parenting plan. In this case, both parties petitioned the court for modification of the shared parenting plan. Therefore, they each had the burden of proving that the modification they sought was in the children's best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to change the residential parent designated for school purposes as a modification of a shared parenting plan when the change does not reallocate parental rights.

Porter v. Porter, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2002) · filed 2002-11-06(E)(2)(b)

In this case, the judgment entry of the trial court merely changes the designation of the residential parent for school purposes, and this change does not affect the legal rights of either parent nor does it involve a reallocation of parental rights. ... Therefore, as the judgment entry of the trial court merely changed the terms of the plan, the trial court did not erroneously apply R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2) to effectuate the change of the residential parent for school purposes.

Repeated denial of court-ordered companionship after a shared parenting plan begins can establish a change in circumstances under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

In Re Lemon, Unpublished Decision (11-12-2002) · filed 2002-11-12(E)(1)(a)

With respect to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), there was evidence before the Magistrate that there was a change in circumstances subsequent to the inception of the parties' Shared Parenting Plan. As noted by the Magistrate in his Decision, evidence was adduced at the January 17, 2002, hearing that appellant, on two occasions, denied appellee court ordered companionship with Xavier.

Section 3109.04 permits a court to reject shared parenting when the parents cannot communicate effectively about the child’s interests and needs.

Snyder v. Snyder, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2002) · filed 2002-06-07(F)(2)

The trial court could have determined, from the conflicting evidence in the record, that the parties were not able to communicate effectively concerning Jordan's interests and needs, and could have concluded that shared parenting was not in Jordan's best interests.

Section 3109.04(A)(2) does not treat a psychological or second parent as a parent eligible for a shared parenting agreement based on a functional four-part test; parenthood is determined using R.C. 3111.01.

In re Bonfield · filed 2002-08-28(A)(2)

Therefore, as R.C. 3109.04 specifically uses the term “parent” and this term is defined in R.C. 3111.01, we find it inappropriate to adopt appellants’ four-part test to broaden the narrow class of persons who are statutorily defined as parents for purposes of entering a shared parenting agreement.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) does not authorize a court to create its own shared-parenting plan; it may adopt a satisfactory plan submitted by the parties or suggest modifications to their plans.

McClain v. McClain · filed 1993-08-18(D)(1)(a)(ii)

The statute does not give the court authority to create its own shared-parenting plan. A satisfactory plan must be filed with the court for adoption; otherwise, the court will not adopt any plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify a decree allocating parental rights under a shared parenting plan; that requirement does not apply to a visitation change when the decree is not a shared parenting plan.

Dildilian v. Dildilian, Unpublished Decision (1-20-1998) · filed 1998-01-20(E)(1)(a)

A modification of a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) requires a finding of "change in circumstances." ... We find that the Virginia divorce decree was not a shared parenting plan, and that the Juvenile Court did not have to make a finding of a change in circumstances in order to modify the visitation schedule.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires evidence of changed circumstances, the child’s best interests, and advantages outweighing the harm of a change in environment before a court modifies a shared parenting decree.

Bunten v. Bunten · filed 1998-02-26(E)(1)(a)

In summary, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires the court to make the following three findings in this case before modifying a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities: (1) that there exists a change in circumstances of the child or his parents, (2) that modification would be in the best interests of the child, and (3) that the harm likely to be caused by changing a child’s environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change in environment to the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) permits modification of a shared parenting decree when it serves the children's best interests, without a preliminary finding of changed circumstances.

Matter of Reid, Unpublished Decision (7-10-1998) · filed 1998-07-10(E)(2)

As is evident from this division, a court may modify a prior shared parenting decree if it determines that a modification is in the best interest of the children. This determination may be made without a preliminary determination into whether there was also a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances to modify a shared parenting plan; relocation alone is insufficient, but an unsatisfactory temporary custody arrangement implemented to accommodate the relocation can establish that change.

Moore v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (3-27-1998) · filed 1998-03-27(E)(1)(a)

It is our holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a change of circumstances had occurred pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). While relocation alone would not be sufficient to qualify as a change of circumstance, there was a finding, and evidence to support that finding, that the temporary plan of alternating weeks of custody, which was implemented to accommodate the relocation, was unsatisfactory for all concerned. Both experts were in concert on this point. Thus, a finding of a change of circumstances was proper.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify an existing shared parenting plan in a form different from the plans the parents proposed.

Carr v. Carr, Unpublished Decision (8-11-1999) · filed 1999-08-11(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b) states in relevant part: The court may modify the terms of the plan for shared parenting approved by the court and incorporated by it into the shared parenting decree upon its own motion at any time if the court determines that the modifications are in the best interest of the children or upon the request of one or both of the parents under the decree. Thus, the trial court was empowered to modify the shared parenting decree in a form different from the proposed modifications submitted by Father and Mother.

A court may modify a shared parenting plan only if the modification is in the best interest of the children; changing the allocation of their uninsured medical expenses requires a finding to that effect.

Larkey v. Larkey, Unpublished Decision (11-4-1999) · filed 1999-11-04(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) (2) (b) clearly requires that a modification of a shared parenting plan must be in the best interest of the child. See Schoettle v. Bering (April 22, 1996), Brown App. No. CA95-07-011, unreported. The trial court made no finding that altering the agreement with respect to the children's uninsured and unreimbursed medical, dental, optical and prescription drug expenses was in the best interest of the children as required by the statute.

Section 3109.04 governs modification of a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, including a shared parenting plan.

Detty v. Detty, Unpublished Decision (12-30-1999) · filed 1999-12-30(E)(1)(a)

However, in determining whether to modify a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, including a shared parenting plan, R.C. 3109.04 provides the appropriate guidelines.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) governs shared parenting provisions, but does not govern a notice requirement drawn from court visitation guidelines even when those guidelines are incorporated into a shared parenting plan.

Howard v. Howard, Unpublished Decision (11-20-2000) · filed 2000-11-20(E)(2)(b)

We note at the outset that, unlike the mediation provision, which was a specific provision of the parties' SPP, the notice requirement is not a specific provision of the SPP. Rather, the notice requirement is part of the trial court's own guidelines which in turn were incorporated into both the SPP and the divorce decree. Therefore, we find that R.C. 3109.051 (F)(2) (which governs visitation rights), rather than R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b) (which governs shared parenting), applies to the case at bar.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) presumes that a court will retain the residential parent named in a prior shared parenting decree, and a showing that the other parent can provide a better environment alone does not rebut that presumption.

Wyatt v. Wyatt, Unpublished Decision (12-4-2000) · filed 2000-12-04(E)(1)(a)

We find that the presumption in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) that the trial court retain the residential parent designated by the prior shared parenting decree (here, Steele) will not be rebutted merely on a showing that the nonresidential parent can provide a better environment.

Section 3109.04(E) requires a motion to modify a shared parenting decree to obtain a more permanent change in parental rights and responsibilities.

Couch v. Harrison, Unpublished Decision (2-12-2001) · filed 2001-02-12(E)

As the trial court correctly observed, a more permanent modification of parental rights and responsibilities can only be obtained through a motion to modify the shared parenting decree pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a shared parenting decree based on a material change in the circumstances of either parent, when modification serves the child’s best interest.

Martin v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (3-13-2002) · filed 2002-03-13(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 clearly indicates that the court should look not only to a change in circumstances of the child, but also to any change that has occurred in the circumstances of either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree, to determine whether a modification is necessary.

A court may modify a shared parenting plan’s visitation schedule without a parent’s motion only if the change is in the children’s best interest, after considering the factors in division (F)(1).

Taylor v. Hamlin-Scanlon, 23873 (4-23-2008) · filed 2008-04-23(E)(2)(b)

Therefore, the trial court had the power to modify the visitation schedule regardless of whether Father filed a motion in that respect. Id. However, this power is only available if the modifications are in the best interest of the children. As such, the trial court is required to consider the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits modification of a shared parenting plan's parenting schedule when the change is in the children's best interest.

Kauza v. Kauza, Ca2008-02-014 (11-3-2008) · filed 2008-11-03(E)(2)(b)

"R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b) * * * allows * * * for the modification of the terms of a shared-parenting plan." Id. at ¶ 27 (emphasis added). ... We find that the record indicates the modification was made in the best interest of the children, and that the decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) requires a best-interest finding before a court modifies child support terms in a shared parenting plan.

Laver v. Laver, 7-08-01 (11-24-2008) · filed 2008-11-24(E)(2)(b)

Thus, a "modification of child support" is a change in the terms of a shared parenting plan, and the trial court is required to find that a modification would be in the child's best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify parenting time under a shared parenting plan based on the children's best interest, without requiring a change in circumstances when the modification does not change the designation of custodial or residential parent.

Castanias v. Castanias, Ca2007-01-015 (6-16-2008) · filed 2008-06-16(E)(2)(b)

As applied to the facts before us, the requested modification in this case related not to the designation of custodial or residential parent, but instead, related to the parties' parenting time with the children. Therefore, the court was required to consider only whether the proposed modification was in the children's best interest pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify the terms of a shared parenting plan based on the child's best interest when the change concerns how the plan is implemented, including designation of a residential parent for school purposes.

Ralston v. Ralston, 9-08-30 (2-17-2009) · filed 2009-02-17(E)(2)(b)

However, if the court is only seeking to change the method of implementation of a shared parenting plan, by changing its terms, it may apply R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b) and look only to what is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(G) permits a court to allow a shared parenting plan filed after the hearing when the other parent had adequate notice of the request and a fair opportunity to present evidence against the plan.

Clouse v. Clouse, 13-08-40 (3-23-2009) · filed 2009-03-23(G)

Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under R.C. 3109.04 (G) in granting Richard leave to file a shared parenting plan after the final divorce hearing, as the due process concerns of Angie's opportunity to address the shared parenting plan were clearly met by the fact that she had adequate notice of his request for the court to adopt a shared parenting plan, the opportunity to present her own shared parenting plan, and a full and fair opportunity to present evidence against the adoption of a shared parenting plan at the final divorce hearing.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits modification of a shared parenting plan’s terms when the modification serves the children’s best interests, without a finding of changed circumstances.

Depascale v. Finocchi · filed 2010-09-30(E)(2)(b)

Although R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances in order to modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) only requires a consideration of the best interest of the children and does not require a finding of a change in circumstances in order to modify the terms of a shared parenting plan.

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

Kovach v. Lewis · filed 2012-03-29(E)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), the court may modify the terms of the Shared Parenting Plan if the modifications are in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) authorizes a trial court to modify the terms of a shared parenting plan on its own motion or at the request of one or both parents.

Ramsey v. Ramsey · filed 2012-04-18(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) clearly authorizes the trial court to modify the terms of a shared parenting plan upon its own motion or upon request of one or both parents.

When a court changes a residential-parent designation but leaves portions of a shared parenting decree in place, § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires changed circumstances.

Schmidt v. Schmidt · filed 2012-11-06(E)(1)(a)

Thus, we conclude under the unique circumstances existing herein, that the court’s decision was not a termination under (E)(2)(c) but rather than a modification under (E)(1)(a) requiring changed circumstances.

A court considering modification of an existing parenting plan must assess whether circumstances since that plan have changed enough to warrant modification.

Bottum v. Jankovic · filed 2013-11-07(E)(1)(a)

The determination the trial court must make is to assess the circumstances that have evolved since the prior parenting plan and determine if they have so changed that modification is necessary.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify parenting time as a term of a shared parenting plan based on the child’s best interest without finding a change in circumstances when both parents remain residential parents and legal custodians.

Ramsey v. Ramsey · filed 2014-05-06(E)(2)(b)

Thus, as the trial court noted, the change to the amount of time the minor daughter will be physically located with defendant is a modification to a "term" of a shared parenting plan, and thus fell under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) and did not require a finding that a change of circumstances had occurred.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) governs modifications of a shared parenting plan that change or designate a residential parent for school purposes.

In re O.M.R. · filed 2014-10-27(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) controls modifications of a shared parenting plan that change or designate a residential parent for school purposes.

Section 3109.04(G) requires a shared parenting plan to address school placement only when it is relevant to the child’s care.

Bomberger-Cronin v. Cronin · filed 2014-05-30(G)

Therefore, her “school placement” was not a relevant factor.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) does not authorize a court to create or unilaterally modify a proposed shared parenting plan; the court may ask the parent to revise an unsatisfactory plan and reject it if the revisions remain unsatisfactory.

Holden v. Holden · filed 2016-08-29(D)(1)(a)(iii)

As set forth above, R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) does not give a court the authority to create its own shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04 does not require best-interest findings for a change in shared parenting when the judgment does not modify the shared parenting arrangement.

Austin v. Austin · filed 2016-11-23

Because the April 28, 2016 judgment did not modify the shared parenting arrangement, the trial court was not required to include in that judgment a finding as to the children’s best interest or any other findings relevant to a change in shared parenting.

Changing the residential parent for school purposes modifies a term of a shared parenting plan under subsection (E)(2)(b).

In re T.G.O. · filed 2017-01-17(E)(2)(b)

Changing the residential parent for school purposes is a modification of a term of a shared parent plan that is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan in the child’s best interest, including by directing the child to attend traditional public school.

Bell v. Bell · filed 2017-04-03(E)(2)(b)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) provides: ... The court may modify the terms of the plan for shared parenting approved by the court and incorporated by it into the shared parenting decree upon its own motion at any time if the court determines that the modifications are in the best interest of the children or upon the request of one or both of the parents under the decree. ... Based upon the foregoing and the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Dakota attend traditional public school.

Section 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) requires a court that denies a proposed shared parenting plan to record findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the denial.

In re E.M.M. · filed 2017-06-12(D)(1)(a)(iii)

When the court denies a parenting plan, it must enter in the record findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reason for the denial.

Section 3109.04(G) gives trial courts discretion to permit a shared parenting plan filed within thirty days of the hearing.

Gould v. Gould · filed 2017-08-02(G)

This provision is not intended to divest the trial court of a reasonable degree of flexibility in considering shared parenting plans, and a trial court, within its discretion, may relieve a party of the statutory deadline and grant a request to file a plan within thirty days of a hearing.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits modification of parenting time in a shared parenting plan based on the children’s best interest, without a showing of changed circumstances.

Gessner v. Gessner · filed 2017-09-08(E)(2)(b)

On consideration, we agree with the majority of appellate districts that modification of parenting time, as opposed to modification of residential parent and legal custodian, should be evaluated under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), and a showing of “change in circumstances” under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is not required.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires changed circumstances to modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, but does not require specific findings when a court refuses modification.

McGrew v. McGrew · filed 2017-09-27(E)(1)(a)

Thus, although a finding of changed circumstances is a prerequisite to modifying a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, the statute does not require specific findings in a court’s refusal to modify.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) governs a change to the school placement parent in a shared parenting plan, so the harm-versus-advantages finding required for modifying a decree under (E)(1)(a) is unnecessary.

Myers v. Wade · filed 2017-12-05(E)(2)(b)

Under Fisher, the designation of school placement parent is a term of and determined by a shared parenting "plan" and pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(a) permits parents under a shared parenting decree to jointly modify the parenting plan at any time.

Bond v. De Rinaldis · filed 2018-03-13(E)(2)(a)

Or, Pandolfi could negotiate with Bond and seek a joint modification of the plan under subsection R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(a), which states that "[b]oth parents under a shared parenting decree jointly may modify the terms of the plan for shared parenting approved by the court and incorporated by it into the shared parenting decree." Such a stipulated modification "may be made at any time."

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) applies the best-interest standard when a parent seeks to modify the terms of a shared parenting plan without changing the designation of residential parent and legal custodian.

Hall v. Hall · filed 2019-01-14(E)(2)(b)

When a parent seeks to modify the terms of the shared parenting plan, rather than seeking to change the designation of the residential parent and legal custodian, the best-interest standard in R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) controls the analysis.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) requires a best-interest determination to modify a shared-parenting plan’s designation of a residential parent for school purposes.

Bishop v. Bishop · filed 2018-10-09(E)(2)(b)

Thus, the trial court only had to determine whether the modification was in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(G) makes the 30-day deadline for filing a shared parenting plan directory rather than mandatory.

Shinski v. Shinski · filed 2018-10-22(G)

As this court has previously recognized, the requirement in R.C. 3109.04(G) that a shared parenting plan must be filed at least 30 days prior to the hearing on parental rights and responsibilities is directory, not mandatory.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to change a shared parenting plan’s school-residential-parent designation based on the child’s best interest without requiring a change in circumstances.

In re A.N.G.G. · filed 2019-04-08(E)(2)(b)

2. The requested modification involved naming a residential parent for school purposes, which is a change to the terms of the shared parenting agreement. As such, no change in circumstances need have occurred, and instead, the modification request is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b). In re E.L.C., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-177, 2015-Ohio-2220.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify an existing shared-parenting plan on its own motion or a parent’s request when the modifications are in the children’s best interest.

Palichat v. Palichat · filed 2019-04-12(E)(2)(b)

Elizabeth correctly points out that another provision, R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), authorizes a trial court to make its own modifications to the terms of an existing shared-parenting plan at any time. It may do so on its own motion or at the request of either party as long as the modifications are in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows modification of a shared-parenting plan at a parent’s request when the modification is in the child’s best interest.

Kane v. Hardin · filed 2019-10-25(E)(2)(b)

To make any modification to the plan, the court must find that the modification is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) requires a court modifying a shared parenting decree to determine that the advantages of changing the child’s environment outweigh the likely harm.

Herron v. Herron · filed 2019-12-11(E)(1)(a)(iii)

In addition, the magistrate and trial court did not make any sort of determination that the “harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child[,]” as required under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii).

Changing the residential parent for school purposes modifies a shared parenting plan under § 3109.04(E)(2)(b) and is permitted if the change is in the children’s best interest.

Leach v. Leach · filed 2020-03-30(E)(2)(b)

Changing the residential parent for school purposes is a modification of a term to the shared parent plan and is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b). ... Pursuant to that statute, the court may modify the terms of the shared parenting plan if such modification is in the best interest of the children.

Changing the residential parent for school purposes modifies a shared-parenting plan under § 3109.04(E)(2)(b), requiring a best-interest determination but no finding of changed circumstances.

In re E.B. · filed 2020-08-20(E)(2)(b)

Consistent with this court’s decision in In re F.T., we conclude that by designating Father as the children’s residential parent for school purposes, the juvenile court merely modified a term of the parties’ shared-parenting plan that had been incorporated into the parties’ divorce decree. ... Based on the foregoing, we find the juvenile court was not required to find that a change in circumstances of the child or either parent had occurred at some point after the prior shared-parenting decree was issued before modifying this term of the parties’ shared-parenting plan. Rather, the lower standard under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) applies in this case. Therefore, the juvenile court only had to determine what was in the best interest of the children under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

A court may modify a term of a shared parenting plan upon proof that the modification is in the child’s best interest.

Rhoden v. Hurt · filed 2020-10-13(E)(2)(b)

Unlike a modification to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, a modification of a shared parenting plan term only requires proof that the modification is in the child’s best interest.