Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) applies when a court changes which shared-parenting parent is designated residential parent for school purposes while otherwise preserving both parents’ residential-parent rights and responsibilities.

Brown v. Brown · filed 2021-06-07(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.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) allows a court to modify a shared-parenting plan on its own initiative or at either parent’s request when the modification serves the child’s best interest.

Cobb v. Ortiz · filed 2021-06-16(E)(2)(b)

In addition, R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) authorizes a trial court, either on its own initiative or at the request of one or both parents, to modify the terms of the shared-parenting plan when modification is found to be in the best interest of the child.

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, including changes to the school-purpose residential parent and parenting-time schedule.

In re G.B. · filed 2022-02-10(E)(2)(b)

Thus, to modify the terms of a shared-parenting plan under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), the court need only find that the modification is in the best interest of the child; no finding of a change in circumstances is required.

Section 3109.04 requires a court terminating a shared parenting plan to consider the children’s best interests and the listed statutory factors, while permitting consideration of additional factors.

Heiser v. Heiser, 10-07-02 (10-15-2007) · filed 2007-10-15(F)(1)

In terminating a shared parenting plan, the trial court must consider the best interests of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1). In making this determination, the trial court is required to consider the factors outlined in R.C. 3109.04 (F), but may consider additional factors as well. R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows a court to terminate a shared parenting order on its own motion when it determines that shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest.

Meyer v. Anderson, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2002) · filed 2002-06-07(E)(2)(c)

The domestic relations court may terminate a shared parenting order upon the motion of either parent "or whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child(ren)." R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) does not bar consideration of a split parental rights arrangement when a motion seeks primary residential parent status but does not expressly request termination of shared parenting.

Ullom v. Ullom, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2002) · filed 2002-06-14(E)(2)(c)

Appellee argues that the Amended Memorandum of Understanding cannot be a split parental rights arrangement because appellant did not request a termination of the shared parenting plan in accordance with R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c). However, appellant's motion for modification of parental rights requested that he be named the primary residential parent of the eldest minor child. As stated above, being named a primary residential parent is a key feature of a split parental rights arrangement. R.C. 3119.01 (B)(14). Furthermore, as explained above, the ambiguity in the Amended Memorandum of Understanding, created a mutual mistake of fact as to what the parties were agreeing to. Appellee thought the Amended Memorandum of Understanding was a modification of the shared parenting plan, while appellant believed the parties were agreeing to the termination of the shared parenting plan and the implementation of a split parental rights arrangement. Therefore, appellee's argument fails.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared-parenting decree on a parent’s request or when shared parenting is not in the children’s best interest, without requiring a change of circumstances.

McDonough v. McDonough, Unpublished Decision (7-31-2002) · filed 2002-07-31(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) provides that a court may terminate a shared-parenting decree upon the request of one or both parents or if it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children. Consequently, the court need not determine that a change of circumstances occurred before it may terminate a shared-parenting decree.

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

Hatter v. Hatter, Unpublished Decision (12-24-2002) · filed 2002-12-24(E)(2)(c)

If a shared-parenting plan is terminated, the trial court need not find a change in circumstances, but only that the shared-parenting plan is not in the best interest of the child.

A court-approved shared parenting agreement appended to a final divorce decree immediately takes effect as a final custody decree, subject to modification or termination.

Miller v. Miller · filed 1996-11-20(D)(1)(d)

Under R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(d), any court-approved shared parenting agreement that is appended to the final divorce decree has immediate effect as a final decree of custody, subject to modification or termination. Therefore, the December 22, 1993 shared parenting plan became the first decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities between appellant and appellee.

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

Deimling v. Messer, Unpublished Decision (3-16-1998) · filed 1998-03-16(E)(2)(c)

Accordingly, although the trial court's wellwritten decision includes a finding that a change of circumstances had occurred, this finding was not necessary because termination of a shared parenting agreement requires only a finding of best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate a jointly submitted shared parenting plan at one parent's request without a change in circumstances.

Goetze v. Goetze, Unpublished Decision (3-27-1998) · filed 1998-03-27(E)(2)(c)

By contrast, R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) allows a trial court to terminate a jointly submitted shared parenting plan upon the request of one party. Nothing more is required. Patton , supra . A change in circumstances is not necessary.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(d) requires the court, after terminating a shared parenting plan, to allocate parental rights as though no shared parenting request had been made.

Brennaman v. Huber, Unpublished Decision (3-20-1998) · filed 1998-03-20(E)(2)(d)

The court's termination of the shared parenting plan, however, left the parties at "square one" with respect to the parental rights issue, Blair v. Blair (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 345 , and R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(d) required the court to allocate parental rights "as if no request for shared parenting ever had been made."

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan based on the children’s best interests without a showing of changed circumstances.

Dobran v. Dobran, Unpublished Decision (9-1-1999) · filed 1999-09-01(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) (2) (c) on the other hand, applies solely to instances where an outright termination of the plan is being requested. Under this section, no mention of a change of circumstances is made. The standard which the court must look to and apply is that of the best interest of the children involved.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) permits a court to modify a shared parenting plan on its own motion at any time when modification serves the children’s best interests, including after a hearing on a motion to terminate the plan.

Thomas v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (9-17-1999) · filed 1999-09-17(E)(2)(b)

A trial court is given express authority, on its own motion, to modify a shared parenting plan at any time if it determines that modification is in the best interests of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(b). Because the trial court had the authority to modify the shared parenting plan on its own motion, it had the authority to do so following the hearing on Thomas's motion to terminate the shared parenting plan, concluding, as it evidently did, that a termination of the shared parenting plan was not warranted.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan based on the children’s best interests without a finding of changed circumstances.

Gambrell v. Gambrell, Unpublished Decision (1-31-2000) · filed 2000-01-31(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) (2) (c), which addresses the termination of a SPP, provides that a trial court may terminate a final shared parenting decree on request of one or both of the parties, or on its own motion, if it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children . ... In the instant case, the trial court should not have applied the change of circumstance standard when considering appellant's motion to terminate the SPP.

Section 3109.04 permits a court to terminate a shared parenting plan on its own finding that shared parenting is not in the children’s best interest and requires a modified allocation decree upon termination.

Smith v. Truitt, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2000) · filed 2000-02-10(E)(2)(c)-(d)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) provides that the court may terminate a shared parenting plan upon the request of one or both of the parents or whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(d) then provides that, upon termination of the shared parenting decree, the court must issue a modified decree for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Thus, the trial court may sua sponte terminate the shared parenting decree upon a finding that shared parenting was not in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan without a finding of changed circumstances.

Massengill v. Massengil, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2001) · filed 2001-03-23(E)(2)(c)

A change in circumstances does not have to be found before a trial court can terminate a shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows a court to terminate a shared parenting plan at either parent’s request if termination is in the children’s best interests, considering the relevant factors in subsections (F)(1) and (2).

Brown v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2001) · filed 2001-09-20(E)(2)(c)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c), a court may terminate a shared parenting plan on the request of one or both of the parents if it determines that it is in the best interest of the children. In determining the best interests of the children, the court shall consider all relevant factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) and (2).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances or newly revealed circumstances, plus a best-interests finding, before a court may terminate a shared parenting decree under (E)(2)(c).

Stout v. Stout, Unpublished Decision (10-17-2001) · filed 2001-10-17(E)(1)(a), (E)(2)(c)

However, we have previously held that subsection (c) of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2) is subordinate to the general provision of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) requiring that either a change in the parents' or children's circumstances be found, or that previously unknown circumstances be revealed, and that any modification be found to be in the best interests of the children before any custody modification may be ordered.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree when shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest, without proof of changed circumstances.

Lynch v. Lynch, Unpublished Decision (3-7-2003) · filed 2003-03-07(E)(2)(c)

Nevertheless, where the issue is the termination of an existing shared parenting decree, R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) provides that the court may do so if shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child. In such an instance, the moving party does not need to demonstrate a change of circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) permits termination of a shared-parenting agreement based on the child’s best interests without a finding of changed circumstances.

Myers v. Myers · filed 2003-06-30(E)(2)

Therefore, under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2), the trial court was required to find only that terminating the shared-parenting agreement was in the best interests of the child. Any findings concerning a change in circumstances were superfluous and do not constitute prejudicial error.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan when termination is in the child’s best interests without a finding of changed circumstances.

Williamson v. Williamson, Unpublished Decision (11-26-2003) · filed 2003-11-26(E)(2)(c)

However, as we stated in Massengill, the trial court need not find a change in circumstances in order to terminate a shared parenting plan so long as it determines that the termination of the shared parenting plan would be in the child's best interests.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan at either parent’s request or when the plan is no longer in the child’s best interest.

Winfield v. Winfield, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2003) · filed 2003-12-12(E)(2)(c)

Thus, the plan may be terminated upon the request of either party, or when it is no longer in the best interest of the child.

A court may terminate a final shared parenting decree on a parent’s request when it determines that shared parenting is no longer in the child’s best interest.

Basford v. Basford, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2004) · filed 2004-03-26(E)(2)(c)

A court may terminate a prior final shared parenting decree upon the request of one or both parents whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the child's best interest. ... Given these considerations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the shared parenting plan and awarding custody to appellee.

Section 3109.04 permits termination of a shared parenting decree when shared parenting is not in the children's best interest, including when the parents cannot cooperate and one repeatedly denies the other parenting time.

Hunter v. Rainer, Unpublished Decision (4-5-2004) · filed 2004-04-05(E)(2)(c)

The magistrate meticulously reviewed the history and circumstances of the case, and determined "[t]he Parties have no ability to cooperate and make decisions jointly with respect to the children. The Parties have no ability to encourage the sharing of love, affection, and contact between the child and the other parent." ... There is ample evidence in the record to support these conclusions. ... Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in terminating the shared parenting plan and awarding custody of the children to appellee.

After terminating an initial shared parenting agreement, the court decides custody as if the agreement had never existed, using the child’s best interests.

In Re Pasco, Unpublished Decision (9-1-2004) · filed 2004-09-01(E)(2)(d)

When a trial court terminates a custody order contained in a shared parenting agreement, the court then proceeds as if the shared parenting agreement had never existed. R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(2)(d). In the case at bar, the shared parenting agreement was the initial custody decision. Once the shared parenting agreement was dissolved, the trial court was required to proceed as if it were making an initial custody decision. An initial custody decree requires the court to consider only the best interests of the child in rendering its decision.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a jointly agreed shared parenting plan on either parent’s request or when the court determines shared parenting is not in the children’s best interest; a written termination motion is unnecessary.

Matis v. Matis, Unpublished Decision (1-12-2005) · filed 2005-01-12(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c), however, permits a court to terminate a shared parenting plan, which was previously generated by the consensus of both parties, upon the request of either parent or "whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children." In the instant case, Appellee requested termination of the shared parenting plan during an August pre-trial and the trial court determined that shared parenting was not in the best interests of the children. The mandates of the statute in this regard have been met.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared-parenting decree based on the child's best interest without a finding of changed circumstances under division (E)(1)(a).

Lopez v. Lopez, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2005) · filed 2005-03-17(E)(2)(c)

However, this finding of a change in circumstance was unnecessary because termination of a shared-parenting decree pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) only requires that the trial court consider the best interest of the child in determining custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate a shared parenting plan made by agreement upon either parent’s request or when shared parenting is no longer in the child’s best interest.

Cherwin v. Cherwin, Unpublished Decision (4-28-2005) · filed 2005-04-28(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c), permits a court to terminate a shared parenting plan, which was previously generated by the consensus of both parties, upon the request of either parent or "whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child."

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a consensual shared parenting agreement at either parent’s request or when the court determines that shared parenting is not in the children’s best interest; the court must consider the statutory best interest factors.

Ross v. Ross, Unpublished Decision (6-13-2005) · filed 2005-06-13(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2) states the circumstances in which a trial court may modify or terminate a shared parenting agreement. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate a shared parenting agreement, which was previously generated by the consensus of both parties, upon the request of either parent or "whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children." In determining the children's best interest and whether shared parenting is in the children's best interest, a trial court is required to consider the factors in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(a)-(j) and R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2)(a)-(e).

Terminating a shared parenting decree under (E)(2)(c) requires a change in circumstances under (E)(1)(a), but factual findings showing that change can suffice without an explicit finding.

Fisher v. Fisher, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2005) · filed 2005-10-24(E)(1)(a), (E)(2)(c)

Therefore, the issue presented is whether a trial court must find a change in circumstances under R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) before it terminates a shared parenting agreement under R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(2)(c). ... In Noe, we held that R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(2)(d) was subordinate to R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). Although R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) was R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(2)(d) at that time, the content of the former statute is substantially the same as the current version. ... We continue to follow our precedent. Although, the trial court did not specifically find a change in circumstances, it substantially complied with the relevant statutes. The facts found by the court indicate a change in circumstances and that the benefits from terminating the shared parenting plan outweigh the harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan without a finding of changed circumstances; the court considers the child's best interest.

Waclawski v. Waclawski, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2006) · filed 2006-06-23(E)(2)(c)

This court has previously held that in accordance with R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c), a trial court does not need to delve into whether there has been a change in circumstances prior to terminating a shared parenting plan.

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

Tomasewski v. Tomasewski, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2006) · filed 2006-06-29(E)(2)(c)

Accordingly, the trial court was not required to find a change in circumstances in order to terminate the shared parenting plan as long as it determined that the termination of the shared parenting plan would be in Nicole's best interests.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(d) requires a fresh allocation of parental rights after termination of a shared parenting decree, allowing the court to consider parenting events from before and after the shared parenting plan.

Babel v. Babel, Unpublished Decision (8-21-2006) · filed 2006-08-21(E)(2)(d)

In addition, the statutory provision regarding termination of a shared parenting agreement provides that on termination of a shared parenting decree, "a court shall proceed and issue a modified decree for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children * * * as if no decree for shared parenting had been granted and as if no request for shared parenting had ever been made." R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(d). Thus, the statute contemplates the trial court's consideration of the parenting issue begins anew once a shared parenting plan is terminated.

Termination of a shared parenting plan under § 3109.04(E)(2)(c) does not require a change in circumstances or a finding that the advantages of the change outweigh the likely harm.

Hamby v. Hamby, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2006) · filed 2006-12-27(E)(2)(c)

The present motion, however, is not a motion to modify the shared parenting plan pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1) but a motion to terminate it pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c). ... A termination under this section does not require a showing of a change in circumstances or a showing that the advantages of the change outweigh the likely harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan based on the child’s best interests without a finding of changed circumstances or a balance of the harm and advantages of changing the child’s environment.

A.S. v. D.G., Unpublished Decision (4-2-2007) · filed 2007-04-02(E)(2)(c)

Accordingly, the trial court in the instant case was not required to find a change of circumstances or balance the "harm" of an environment change against the advantages in order to terminate the shared parenting plan, as long as the trial court determined that termination of the plan was in the child's best interests, and the trial court here made such findings.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree approved under (D)(1)(a)(i) at either parent’s request without a finding that shared parenting is contrary to the child’s best interest.

C.D. v. D.l, Ca2006-09-037 (5-29-2007) · filed 2007-05-29(E)(2)(c)

At this juncture, we wish to point out that under the first part of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c), a trial court may terminate a shared parenting agreement approved under R.C. 3109.04 (D)(1)(a)(i) simply upon the request of one or both of the parents. While the court may also terminate the shared parenting agreement by finding it is not in the best interest of the child, it is not required to so find before it can terminate the agreement.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a trial court to terminate a shared parenting plan on its own initiative when shared parenting is not in the children's best interest.

Stanley v. Stanley, 23427 (6-6-2007) · filed 2007-06-06(E)(2)(c)

We begin by noting that the trial court can sua sponte terminate a shared parenting plan "whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children." R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c). Thus, the fact that neither party requested that the SPP be terminated has no effect on our analysis.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan based on the child’s best interests without a finding of changed circumstances, followed by an initial custody determination.

Hall v. Hall, H-07-006 (8-3-2007) · filed 2007-08-03(E)(2)(c)

We again note that that the magistrate was not required to determine that there had been a change in circumstances; rather, because he terminated the shared parenting plan he was making an initial determination as to custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(d) permits a court to terminate a shared parenting plan on its own motion, but requires specific findings before termination.

Whitman v. Whitman, 5-05-36 (8-20-2007) · filed 2007-08-20(E)(2)(d)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), a trial court may terminate a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities on its own motion, and pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(d), the court may terminate a shared parenting plan on its own motion. Both of these provisions require the court to make specific findings prior to the termination.

Under § 3109.04(K)(5), a shared parenting decree may give both parents custody of the child, with each parent serving as residential parent and legal custodian while the child is with that parent.

In Re Christian S., Unpublished Decision (10-26-2007) · filed 2007-10-26(K)(5)

In this case, the Shared Parenting Decree between appellant and the mother stated that "[w]hile the minor child is in the possession of Mother or Father respectively, that parent shall be considered the residential parent and legal custodian." Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (K)(5), the decree therefore provides that "both parents have `custody of the child' or `care, custody, and control of the child.'" As such, whenever Christian was with appellant, appellant was considered to be "the residential parent and legal custodian."

After terminating a shared parenting order, a court must allocate parental rights and responsibilities as if no shared parenting decree had existed, based on the children’s best interests.

Portwood v. Naughton, 22186 (1-4-2008) · filed 2008-01-04(E)(2)(d)

Once a court terminates a shared parenting order, it is required by R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(d) to allocate parental rights and responsibilities as if no decree for shared parenting ever had existed. In so doing, it must determine what would be in the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows a court to terminate a shared parenting plan based on the child’s best interests when the resulting order gives one parent sole residential custody and the other visitation.

Beismann v. Beismann, 22323 (3-7-2008) · filed 2008-03-07(E)(2)(c)

Simply put, the plan was terminated. In light of the foregoing material changes in B.B.'s custodial status, we are unpersuaded by Sean's argument that the trial court merely modified the shared parenting plan. Thus, the trial court acted properly when it exercised its discretion and terminated the shared parenting plan based on the best interests of B.B. pursuant to R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(2)(c).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan based on the child's best interests without a finding of changed circumstances.

Rogers v. Rogers, H-07-024 (4-11-2008) · filed 2008-04-11(E)(2)(c)

Nevertheless, where the issue is the termination of an existing shared parenting decree, R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2)(c) provides that the court may do so if shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child. In such an instance, the moving party does not need to demonstrate a change of circumstances.

Under § 3109.04(K)(6), both parents in a shared parenting plan are residential parents at all times, even when one is designated the residential parent for school purposes.

Kilgore v. Kilgore, 2008-A-0006 (11-3-2008) · filed 2008-11-03(K)(6)

Further, in a shared parenting plan, under R.C. 3109.04 (K)(6), both parents are considered residential parents at all times.

In deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest, no factor in subsection (F)(2) is dispositive, but effective communication and cooperation between the parents are paramount.

Seng v. Seng, Ca2007-12-120 (12-22-2008) · filed 2008-12-22(F)(2)

While no factor in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2) is dispositive, effective communication and cooperation between the parties is paramount in successful shared parenting.

Section 3109.04(A)(2) does not allow a parent and a nonparent to enter into a shared-parenting agreement.

Purvis v. Hazelbaker · filed 2009-02-19(A)(2)

However, Hazelbaker, the natural mother, and the Heatons, as nonparents, could not enter into a shared-parenting agreement under R.C. 3109.04 as a matter of law.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) requires the court to designate one parent as the child’s residential parent when neither parent requests shared parenting or files a shared parenting plan.

Preston v. Preston · filed 2010-08-05(A)(1)

However, the record does not contain evidence that either parent requested shared parenting or filed a shared-parenting plan. Under the statute, therefore, the trial court was required to designate one of the parents the child’s residential parent.

When deciding whether to grant shared parenting, a court must consider the general best interest factors and the additional factors in § 3109.04(F)(2).

Ussher v. Ussher · filed 2011-03-25(F)(2)

When determining whether to grant shared parenting, a trial court must consider the foregoing factors as well as those found in R.C. 3109.04(F)(2).

A court may terminate a shared parenting decree when it determines that shared parenting is not in the children’s best interest.

Clyburn v. Gregg · filed 2010-09-21(E)(2)(c)

But a trial court may terminate a shared parenting decree “whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children.” R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree based on the child’s best interests without first finding a change in circumstances.

Kougher v. Kougher · filed 2011-06-29(E)(2)(c)

Appellant is correct that under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a court may terminate a shared parenting decree without the need to first find that a change in circumstances has occurred.

Section 3109.04 does not allow a parent to enter a statutory shared-parenting arrangement with a nonparent because the nonparent is not a parent under the statute.

In re Mullen · filed 2011-07-12

For example, Ohio does not recognize a parent’s attempt to enter into a statutory “shared parenting” arrangement with a nonparent, same-sex partner because the nonparent does not fall within the definition of “parent” under the current statutes.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) makes the children’s best interests the test for terminating a shared parenting plan; a substantial change in circumstances is not required.

Toler v. Toler · filed 2011-07-15(E)(2)(c)

We conclude that even though the trial court erred by considering the issue of whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances, that error was harmless in view of the fact that the trial court also found that termination of the shared parenting plan would not be in the children’s best interest, which finding is supported by competent, credible evidence.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan without a finding of changed circumstances.

Clyburn v. Gregg · filed 2011-10-07(E)(2)(c)

Despite Mother’s arguments, a trial court does not need to find that there was a “change in circumstances” in order to terminate a shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a final shared-parenting decree upon a parent’s request or a finding that shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest, without a finding of changed circumstances.

In re J.L.F. · filed 2012-04-19(E)(2)(c)

We take this language to indicate that the court considered the father’s motion as one presented under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), which allows a court to terminate a final shared-parenting decree merely upon the request of one or both of the parents or whenever the court “determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children.” A ruling under this section does not require the court to make any finding that there has been a change in circumstances.

A court may retain a shared parenting plan when the child’s best interest favors keeping it, even if the parents have difficulty communicating.

Kannan v. Kay · filed 2012-06-06(E)(2)(c)

Based upon the record before us, which does not include any of the parties’ exhibits, as those were not made part of the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was not in K.K.’s best interest to terminate the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(G) requires a shared parenting plan to be filed at least thirty days before the hearing; absent a timely plan or another pending request, the court need not consider shared parenting.

Feldmiller v. Feldmiller · filed 2012-10-05(G)

Inasmuch as David’s request for shared parenting was not supported by a timely-filed plan, and Sara’s request was withdrawn, the court was not required to decide whether shared parenting should be ordered.

After a shared-parenting decree is terminated, § 3109.04(E)(2)(d) directs the court to issue a modified allocation of parental rights as though shared parenting had never been granted or requested.

Curtis v. Curtis · filed 2012-10-19(E)(2)(d)

After termination, the court issues a modified decree allocating parental rights “as if no decree for shared parenting had been granted and as if no request for shared parenting ever had been made.” R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(d).

Section 3109.04(A)(1) permits a court to reject shared parenting when it is not in the children’s best interests and allocate primary parental rights and responsibilities to one parent.

Edwards v. Edwards · filed 2013-01-18(A)(1)

In situations such as this, R.C. 3109.04(A)(1) allows trial courts to reject shared parenting if it is not in the best interests of the children, and to allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the children’s care primarily to one parent.

Section 3109.04(F)(2)(a) makes parents’ ability to cooperate and make joint decisions a significant factor in deciding whether shared parenting remains in the children’s best interest.

Wuich v. Wuich · filed 2013-03-15(F)(2)(a)

Their inability to communicate, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(a), was of primary significance to the court in terminating their shared parenting plan, and we find that an abuse of discretion is not demonstrated.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree approved under division (D)(1)(a)(i) upon the request of either parent, without a best-interest determination.

Sheeter v. Sheeter · filed 2013-04-09(E)(2)(c)

The language of the statute clearly permits shared parenting to be terminated upon the request of one or both parents when the shared parenting decree was approved under R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(i).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) does not require a change in circumstances or a finding that the benefits outweigh the harm before terminating a shared parenting plan.

Logan v. Holcomb · filed 2013-05-20(E)(2)(c)

As a result, we are compelled to find that R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) applies to this matter and that the trial court was not required to find either a change in circumstances or that the harm of a change in residential parent was outweighed by its advantages.

Section 3109.04 does not make an equal parenting-time schedule a shared parenting plan merely because the parents have equal time with the child.

Hartley v. Jones · filed 2013-06-10

While it is true that the parenting time Jaden will spend with each party has been divided equally, that does not cause the parenting schedule to be considered a shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan when termination is in the child’s best interests, without requiring a change in circumstances.

Brammer v. Brammer · filed 2013-07-01(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) merely requires that the party seeking termination of a shared parenting plan must show that the termination is in the best interests of the minor child, without necessitating a finding of a change of circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires a court deciding whether to terminate a shared parenting plan to apply the child’s best-interest standard.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2013-09-23(E)(2)(c)

Thus, the trial court independently reviewed the evidence in light of the appropriate legal standard of the best interest of the child, as required by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), before denying both parties’ motions for orders terminating the Shared Parenting Plan.

Section 3109.04 requires the trial court to consider the relevant factors and determine on the record whether terminating shared parenting is in the child’s best interest.

Mogg v. McCloskey · filed 2013-09-30(E)(2)(c)

The court must itself consider the listed factors, in addition to all other relevant factors, and conclude on the record whether termination is in the best interest of the child.

A court may terminate a shared parenting plan based on the children’s best interests without finding a change in circumstances or weighing the advantages of the change against likely harm.

Batcher v. Pierce · filed 2013-10-23(E)(2)(c)

A court may terminate an SPP upon a determination that the SPP is not in the best interest of the children. ... “A termination under this section does not require a showing of a change in circumstances or a showing that the advantages of the change outweigh the likely harm.” ... It only requires a trial court to perform a best interest analysis under R.C. 3109.04(F).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) does not require a change in circumstances to terminate a shared parenting decree; the court considers whether shared parenting remains in the child’s best interest.

Drees v. Drees · filed 2013-11-25(E)(2)(c)

This assignment of error is moot under our finding that R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) applies to this case and therefore, the finding of change was not required. ... Accordingly, under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), Linda’s motion to terminate the prior final shared parenting plan fails because there is insufficient evidence that “shared parenting is not in the best interest of the [child].”

Section 3109.04 does not make the parties’ failure to file a shared parenting plan dispositive; serious communication problems can make shared parenting contrary to the child’s best interest.

Ibrahim v. Ibrahim · filed 2013-12-05

The failure of the parties to file a shared parenting plan does not ultimately decide the issue. ... Given the communication problems and other problems between the parties, shared parenting was not in the best interest of anyone.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court, at the request of either parent, to terminate a shared parenting plan and modify the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities consistently with the child’s best interest.

Cottrell v. Cottrell · filed 2014-02-24(E)(2)(c)

However, upon the request of one or both parents, the trial court may terminate the shared parenting plan and issue a modified decree for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child in a manner consistent with the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c); R.C. 3109.04(A)(1).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree without a finding of changed circumstances.

In re A.P.D. · filed 2014-04-17(E)(2)(c)

A decision to terminate shared parenting under this section does not require the court to find that there has been a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) governs termination of a shared parenting decree under the child’s best interest standard, without requiring a change in circumstances.

Warner v. Thomas · filed 2014-08-18(E)(2)(c)

Nevertheless, when a trial court is reviewing a magistrate’s specific recommendation to terminate a shared parenting decree, we believe a best interest analysis is more consistent with the intent of R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) and is the better practice, even if the trial court ultimately declines to adopt the recommendation. Accordingly, we have no choice but to conclude that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the appropriate legal standard for termination and when it failed to conduct an inquiry regarding whether continuing or terminating shared parenting is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04 requires courts to consider both a change of circumstances and the child’s best interest when deciding whether to terminate a shared parenting plan.

Murphy v. Murphy · filed 2014-09-12(E)(2)(c)

Although there is not unanimity among the various appellate districts in Ohio on the issue, this Court has taken the position that a trial court must consider the threshold question of "change of circumstances," as well as "best interest," in deciding a shared parenting termination issue.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan approved under division (D)(1)(a)(i) upon either parent’s request without a prior finding that shared parenting is against the child’s best interest.

Manis v. Manis · filed 2014-11-17(E)(2)(c)

In the present case, the parties entered into a shared parenting plan in accordance with R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(i). Therefore, the trial court was not required to first find that shared parenting was not in the best interest of the child (even though it did) before it could terminate the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree when termination is in the child’s best interest, without requiring a change in circumstances.

S.M. v. S.P. · filed 2015-08-07(E)(2)(c)

The court did not need to determine if a substantial change had occurred. The only relevant issue was whether termination of the shared parenting decree was in the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a best-interest finding for terminating shared parenting to be implicit in the trial court’s stated reasoning.

Miller v. Hunter · filed 2015-08-21(E)(2)(c)

Although the trial court did not expressly state a finding that termination of the shared parenting plan was in the children’s best interest, such a finding was implicit in the trial court’s statement that, “[g]iven the parties’ struggle to communicate or agree on what is in the children’s best interest, the Court agrees that shared parenting is not appropriate in this situation.” The court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion.

When both parents seek to terminate a shared-parenting plan, the court may terminate it under division (E)(2)(c) if the plan is not in the child’s best interest.

In re C.S. · filed 2015-09-28(E)(2)(c)

Pursuant to that statute, a juvenile court may terminate a shared-parenting plan if it determines that the plan is not in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate shared parenting when termination is in the child’s best interests.

In re N.S. · filed 2016-02-05(E)(2)(c)

To terminate shared parenting, the statute requires only “ ‘that the court find that it is in the best interests of the minor child.’ ” Toler v. Toler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 10–CA–69, 2011–Ohio–3510, ¶ 11, quoting Beismann v. Beismann, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22323, 2008–Ohio–984, ¶ 8. ... After conducting a review of the transcript, and the extensive findings of the magistrate and trial court, we find that the decision to terminate the shared parenting plan was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 3109.04(A)(2) limits shared parenting to parents; a person who has not established parenthood cannot obtain shared parenting under it.

J.M. v. A.M. · filed 2016-03-25(A)(2)

Shared parenting is governed by R.C. 3109.04(A)(2). That statute uses only the word “parent” in the context of a shared parenting agreement. ... Here, J.M. does not fall into any category establishing parenthood. Thus, the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims raised.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) makes parents’ ability to cooperate and make joint decisions relevant to whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest.

Gibson v. Gibson · filed 2016-07-18(F)(2)

After a thorough review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision designating Father as the residential parent and legal custodian of their daughter rather than granting Mother's request for shared parenting. Just as the trial court found, the parties have a long and troubled history indicating they lack the ability to effectively communicate with one another in order to make mutual decisions regarding both of their children's needs.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a final shared parenting decree upon either parent’s request when both parents agreed to the original plan, without a separate finding that shared parenting is no longer in the child’s best interest.

Sayre v. Furgeson · filed 2016-06-20(E)(2)(c)

If both parties agreed upon the shared parenting plan, a mere request by one or both of the parents is a sufficient basis for the trial court’s termination of a prior final shared parenting decree, even without the finding that shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan without a finding of changed circumstances when shared parenting is not in the children’s best interests.

Brumfield v. Brumfield · filed 2016-12-27(E)(2)(c)

When terminating a shared parenting plan, rather than modifying it, the trial court does not have to find that a change in circumstances occurred.

A parent’s failure to communicate or cooperate effectively with the other parent is grounds for terminating a shared parenting plan.

Haupt v. Haupt · filed 2017-05-08(F)(2)(a)

The failure of parents to communicate or cooperate effectively is grounds for terminating a shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows termination of a jointly recommended shared parenting decree on either parent’s request without a change in circumstances.

Redmond v. Wade · filed 2017-05-12(E)(2)(c)

Thus, a court may terminate a jointly-recommended parenting decree if (1) one of the parties requests it, (2) if both parties request it, or (3) if the court finds that shared parenting no longer is in the child’s best interest. J.L.R., supra, at ¶31. The statute does not require a trial court to find a change in circumstances before it may terminate a shared parenting decree. Id. at ¶28.

After terminating shared parenting, the court must reallocate parental rights as though no shared parenting decree or request had existed.

Blessing v. Blessing · filed 2017-05-19(E)(2)(d)

After terminating a shared parenting agreement, the court must then issue a modified decree allocating parental rights “as if no decree for shared parenting had been granted and as if no request for shared parenting ever had been made.” R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(d).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting order when shared parenting is no longer in the child’s best interest.

Larbig v. Larbig · filed 2017-08-21(E)(2)(c)

A court may accordingly terminate a shared parenting order if it determines shared parenting is no longer in the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan based on the child’s best interest without requiring a change in the circumstances of the child or either parent.

In re M.O. · filed 2017-09-20(E)(2)(c)

Even if the law requires the application of R.C. 3109.04 in this case, the applicable provision under these circumstances would be R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), which provides that the court may terminate a shared parenting plan in consideration of the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) does not require the court to consider and determine whether there has been a change in the circumstances of the child or either parent before terminating the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate a shared parenting plan at a parent’s request without finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Harmon v. Harmon · filed 2017-11-27(E)(2)(c)

Therefore, while a court may terminate the shared parenting plan approved under R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(i) by finding it is not in the best interest of the child, it is not required to make this finding before it terminates the plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan upon a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest, without a finding of changed circumstances.

Hatfield v. Cornell · filed 2018-03-05(E)(2)(c)

Therefore, in order to terminate a shared parenting plan, the juvenile court need only find that terminating the shared parenting plan is in the child's best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate shared parenting at a parent’s request if the court determines that shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2018-04-20(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate shared parenting at the request of one or both parents if the court determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) permits termination of shared parenting when it is not in the children’s best interest.

Dickerson v. Dickerson · filed 2018-08-31(E)(2)

A court may terminate shared parenting if it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04(E)(2).

After a shared parenting decree is terminated, Section 3109.04 requires consideration of the (F)(1) best interest factors when reallocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Hise v. Laiviera · filed 2018-12-27(E)(2)(d)

Reading division (E)(2)(d) with (F)(1), the allocation decision subsequent to termination of shared parenting also requires the consideration of the (F)(1) best interest factors.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) governs termination of a shared parenting decree and does not require a change of circumstances under subsection (E)(1)(a).

Brown v. Brown · filed 2019-06-03(E)(2)(c)

This court has consistently held that a motion to terminate shared parenting is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) and does not require a showing of a change of circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(2) allows a court to terminate a shared parenting decree and reallocate parental rights without finding a change in circumstances under (E)(1)(a).

Bruns v. Green · filed 2019-06-11(E)(2)(c)-(d)

Considering all the above and following Lopez, we find appellant has not demonstrated the trial court erred in ultimately designating appellee as legal custodian and residential guardian without making the determinations in R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04 requires consideration of the listed best-interest factors when deciding whether to terminate a shared parenting plan and designate a residential parent.

Keen v. Wilson · filed 2019-06-17(F)(1), (F)(2)

A review of the magistrate’s decision and the trial court’s judgment, however, reflects the magistrate and the trial court properly considered all of the best interest of the children factors of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j) and R.C. 3104(F)(2)(a)-(e), and further demonstrates each finding is supported by competent and credible evidence.

A custody modification motion, whether styled as an ex parte motion or not, permits the court to exercise continuing jurisdiction to terminate a shared parenting plan.

Peck v. Peck · filed 2019-06-28(E)(2)(c)

By raising the issue of custody in the domestic relations court by filing motions to modify custody, regardless of whether those motions are styled ex parte motions or not, the parties sanctioned the court’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction over custody and visitation issues, in particular to terminate the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree when termination is in the child’s best interest.

Harrison v. Harrison · filed 2019-07-12(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires only that the court find that terminating the shared parenting decree is in the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared-parenting plan based on the child’s best interest without proof of changed circumstances.

In re A.C. · filed 2019-07-17(E)(2)(c)

Accordingly, a party seeking to terminate custody under R.C. 3109.04 has no obligation to demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred. Rather, the court must find that a termination of the shared-parenting plan was in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(d) calls for a modified decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities when a court terminates a shared parenting plan; merely describing a de facto termination does not end the plan.

Huth v. Huth · filed 2019-07-22(E)(2)(d)

This observation of the trial court did not, however, effectively terminate the Shared Parenting Plan. There is, in fact, no order that demonstrably terminated the Shared Parenting Plan. ... Further, if the trial court had terminated the parties’ Shared Parenting Plan, it would have issued a modified decree for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(d). It did not do so.

Under § 3109.04(F)(2), parents’ inability to cooperate in raising their child can preclude shared parenting.

Salameh v. Salameh · filed 2019-12-27(F)(2)

The issue impacting custody between Husband and Wife was their inability to co-parent G.S., which negated an award of shared parenting.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) calls for a best-interest analysis when terminating a shared parenting plan; applying (E)(1)(a) instead does not establish reversible error when that analysis occurred and the appellant fails to show resulting error.

In re L.M. · filed 2019-12-31(E)(2)

Further, even though the trial court did apply R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which involves additional considerations along with a best-interest analysis, see R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), as opposed to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2), Father has not explained how doing so resulted in reversible error when the trial court did undertake a best-interest analysis, and it is not this Court’s duty to develop an argument for him.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) allows a court to terminate a shared-parenting plan and decree and designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian based on the child’s best interest without finding a change in circumstances.

Bruns v. Green (Slip Opinion) · filed 2020-10-08(E)(2)

We find that under the plain language of R.C. 3109.04, a trial court is not required to find a change in circumstances, in addition to considering the best interest of the child, before terminating a shared-parenting plan and decree and designating one parent as the residential parent and legal custodian.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires only a finding that termination serves the child’s best interest to end a shared parenting decree.

In re S.J.S. · filed 2020-10-30(E)(2)(c)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires only that the court find that terminating the shared parenting decree is in the child's best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires a best-interests-of-the-child determination to terminate a shared parenting plan.

T.S. v. A.T. · filed 2020-12-23(E)(2)(c)

The trial court made its determination pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), which requires only a “best interests of the child” determination.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan when termination is in the children’s best interest, even when a parent proposes modifying the plan.

Facemyer v. Facemyer · filed 2021-01-12(E)(2)(c)

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not exercise improper discretion when it determined that it was in the children’s best interest to terminate the shared parenting plan instead of modifying it.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree based on the child’s best interest without a separate finding of changed circumstances.

Kurzen v. Kurzen · filed 2021-04-09(E)(2)(c)

Although the trial court determined changed circumstances existed pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), it was not required under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2) to first find changed circumstances, in addition to considering the best interest of the child, prior to terminating the shared parenting plan and decree and designating one parent as the residential parent and legal custodian.

A court may terminate a shared parenting plan when shared parenting is not in the children’s best interest, without finding a change in circumstances.

V.C. v. O.C. · filed 2021-04-29(E)(2)(c)

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a court may terminate a prior final shared parenting plan if the court determines, on its own motion or on the request of one or both parents, that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children. A trial court is not required to find a change in circumstances before terminating a shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate a shared parenting decree at a parent’s request or when shared parenting is not in the children’s best interest.

S.P. v. M.G. · filed 2021-05-21(E)(2)(c)

In that situation, R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) provides that “[t]he court may terminate a prior final shared parenting decree that includes a shared parenting plan * * * upon the request of one or both of the parents or whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children.” ... Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires courts deciding whether shared parenting serves the children’s best interests to consider the parents’ ability to cooperate and encourage the children’s relationship with the other parent, along with the guardian ad litem’s recommendation.

King v. King · filed 2021-08-27(F)(2)

Under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2), in determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the children, the court must consider multiple factors. Among them, the court must consider “[t]he ability of the parents to cooperate and make decisions jointly, with respect to the children,” and “[t]he ability of each parent to encourage the sharing of love, affection, and contact between the child and the other parent.” R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(a) and (b). The court must also consider “[t]he recommendation of the guardian ad litem of the child, if the child has a guardian ad litem.” R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(e).

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires a court deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors, but does not require a finding that a parent continuously and willfully denied parenting time before terminating shared parenting.

D.C. v. M.M. · filed 2021-10-29(F)(2)

Appellant implies that the trial court was required to find that appellant had “continuously and willfully” denied appellee parenting time before terminating the shared parenting plan. That is incorrect. When determining whether shared parenting is in the child’s best interest under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2), the trial court was required to “consider” all relevant factors, including but not limited to the factors of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). That is exactly what the trial court did.

Section 3109.04(E)(2) permits termination of a shared-parenting decree based on the child’s best interest without a prior finding of changed circumstances.

K.H. v. D.B. · filed 2022-02-07(E)(2)

Despite the trial court’s recitation of new “facts” since the shared-parenting decree pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), it was not required under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2) to first find changed circumstances, in addition to considering the best interest of the child, prior to terminating the shared-parenting plan and decree and designating one parent as the residential parent and legal custodian.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan when termination is in the child’s best interest, without a finding of changed circumstances.

Molzon v. Molzon · filed 2022-05-16(E)(2)(c)

A finding of “‘[a] change of circumstances is not required before terminating shared parenting.’” Harrison v. Harrison, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-105, 2019-Ohio-2835, ¶ 6, quoting Curtis v. Curtis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25211, 2012-Ohio-4855, ¶ 7. R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires only that the court find that terminating the shared parenting decree is in the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree when shared parenting is no longer in the children’s best interest, including when the parents cannot communicate or cooperate effectively.

Ziegler v. Ziegler · filed 2022-05-06(E)(2)(c)

Termination of a shared parenting plan is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), which provides, “[t]he court may terminate a prior final shared parenting decree that includes a shared parenting plan approved under division (D)(1)(a)(i) of this section upon the request of one or both of the parents or whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children.” ... A review of the record demonstrates evidence sufficient to support the magistrate’s decision to terminate shared parenting.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows termination of a shared parenting plan without a separate finding of changed circumstances when termination serves the child’s best interest.

Suever v. Schmidt · filed 2022-12-12(E)(2)(c)

Accordingly, contrary to Christa’s argument, once the trial court terminated the shared parenting plan, it was not required to find a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting decree based on the child’s best interests without a finding of changed circumstances.

R.A.R. v. C.E.R. · filed 2023-01-26(E)(2)(c)

Pursuant to Bruns, a trial court must consider a termination under the standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c). We find no error for the trial court to consider only the best interest of the child when deciding whether to terminate the shared parenting plan and decree to which parent to designate as the residential and custodial parent of the minor child.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires consideration of the parents’ ability to communicate and make joint decisions when deciding whether shared parenting is in the child’s best interest.

King v. May · filed 2023-06-09(F)(2)

The trial court’s thorough judgment entry reveals it considered all the relevant factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) in arriving at the decision. Specifically, the trial court noted the parties’ difficulty in communicating with each other and making joint decisions regarding the Child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan upon a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re A.C.F. · filed 2023-09-18(E)(2)(c)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), "in order to terminate a shared parenting plan, the juvenile court need only find that terminating the shared parenting plan is in the child's best interest."

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows a court to terminate a shared parenting plan when it is no longer in the child’s best interest, without first finding a change of circumstances.

Simpson v. Genovese · filed 2023-09-29(E)(2)(c)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a trial court is not required to find a change of circumstances prior to terminating a shared-parenting plan. ... Rather, in terminating a shared parenting plan, the court must find that the plan is no longer in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(2)(a) requires consideration of the parents’ ability to cooperate and make joint decisions, but problems with that ability do not automatically require termination of a shared parenting plan.

Thomas v. Thomas · filed 2023-10-30(F)(2)(a)

Trisha’s assignment of error is based on R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(a), which involves “[t]he ability of the parents to cooperate and make decisions jointly, with respect to the children.” ... However, termination of a shared parenting plan is not required whenever this factor is implicated.

Section 3109.04(E) permits a court to terminate a shared parenting plan when shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest.

B.K. v. R.E.K. · filed 2024-01-18(E)

A trial court may terminate a shared parenting plan if it determines that shared parenting is not in the child's best interest. R.C. 3109.04(E).

A parent’s inability to cooperate in shared parenting can support termination of a shared parenting plan, but it does not require termination when the relevant best-interest factors favor maintaining the plan.

Schmoldt v. Schmoldt · filed 2024-02-12(F)(2)(a)

Although under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(a) this factor constitutes grounds for terminating a shared parenting plan, we noted that termination of a shared parenting plan “is not required whenever this factor is implicated.” Id. at ¶ 45-46. ... Here, the magistrate’s decision appropriately considered the applicable factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (F)(2) in determining the children's best interest, and its findings are supported by competent, credible evidence in the record.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows a court to terminate a final shared parenting decree based on the child’s best interests without limiting the court to the reasons alleged in a parent’s motion.

In re K.R.J.C. · filed 2024-02-20(E)(2)(c)

However, Father provides no law supporting his position that the court was bound to the specific bases alleged in Mother’s motion to terminate the shared parenting plan. As set forth above, “[t]he court may terminate a prior final shared parenting decree that includes a shared parenting plan approved under division (D)(1)(a)(ii) or (iii) of this section if it determines, upon its own motion or upon the request of one or both parents, that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children.” R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c).

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan when shared parenting is not in the child's best interest, without requiring a change-in-circumstances finding.

In re C.L.W. · filed 2024-04-22(E)(2)(c)

Because Father moved to terminate the SPP, his motion was governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), and a change-in-circumstances finding was not required. ... Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a juvenile court may terminate a shared parenting plan if it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires a court to decide whether shared parenting serves the child’s best interest; considering the statutory factors can support adoption of a shared parenting plan.

In re A.H.W. · filed 2024-06-06(F)(2)

[w]hen a party requests shared parenting, R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) requires the court to specifically decide whether shared parenting is in the child’s best interest. ... Based on the record on appeal, we cannot say the best interests of A.H.W. were not considered or that the adoption of the shared parenting plan was an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan and decree based on the child’s best interest without a separate finding of changed circumstances.

Linn v. Utt · filed 2024-08-14(E)(2)(c)

Under the plain language of R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), the trial court was “not required to find a change in circumstances, in addition to considering the best interest of the child, before terminating a shared-parenting plan and decree and designating one parent as the residential parent and legal custodian.” Bruns, 163 Ohio St.3d 43, at ¶ 21.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) allows a court to terminate a shared parenting plan based on the child’s best interest without finding a change in circumstances.

Hodkinson v. Hodkinson · filed 2025-01-21(E)(2)(c)

In Ohio, a domestic relations court need not show a change of circumstances when terminating a shared parenting plan. Because the domestic relations court applied the best interest test in terminating the shared parenting plan, we find Appellant’s second assignment of error is meritless.

A court may terminate a shared parenting plan and decree based on the child’s best interest without finding a change in circumstances.

Becraft v. Snyder · filed 2025-06-20(E)(2)(c)

Contrary to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which governs the modification of a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities and requires a change of circumstances in order to do so, a trial court is not required to find a change in circumstances in order to modify a shared parenting plan; it need only consider the best interest of the child before terminating a shared-parenting plan and decree and designating one parent as the residential parent and legal custodian.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires termination of a shared-parenting plan to be in the child’s best interest.

Tirado v. Tirado · filed 2025-09-05(E)(2)(c)

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), the trial court “may terminate a prior final shared parenting decree that includes a shared parenting plan approved under [R.C. 3109.04](D)(1)(a)(i) . . . upon the request of one or both of the parents or whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children.” Said differently, the termination of a shared-parenting plan must be in the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court to consider all relevant best-interest factors before terminating a shared-parenting plan; failure to do so is reversible error.

Mitchell v. Geiger · filed 2025-10-21(F)(1)

Thus, neither the judgment entry nor the record permits us to presume that the trial court considered the R.C. 3109.04(F) factors as is required prior to terminating the shared parenting plan. We find this is an abuse of discretion and reversible error.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a final shared-parenting decree on a parent’s request or when shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest.

Maxe v. Rosa · filed 2025-11-26(E)(2)(c)

“Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a court may terminate a prior final shared-parenting decree that includes a shared parenting plan upon the request of one or both parents or whenever it determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child.”

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits termination of a shared parenting plan when termination is in the child’s best interests.

Jones v. Jones · filed 2025-12-05(E)(2)(c)

According to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a trial court may terminate a shared parenting plan if it finds that it is in the best interests of the minor child to do so. ... Ultimately, we agree with the trial court that Jones’s untreated alcohol and mental health issues had caused fear in the children and that the record favored termination of the shared parenting plan. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the shared parenting plan and awarding sole custody of the children to Cronk.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) requires a finding that a shared parenting plan is no longer in the child’s best interest before the plan may be terminated.

In re G.M.R. · filed 2025-12-22(E)(2)(c)

In terminating a shared parenting plan, the court must find that the plan is no longer in the best interest of the child.

When parents cannot communicate respectfully or resolve shared parenting disputes, the court may designate one parent as residential parent and legal custodian.

In re S.B. · filed 2026-04-02(A)(1)

It is also clear that shared parenting was difficult for the parents because they cannot communicate with each other in a consistently respectful manner and because deviations from the shared parenting agreement could not be resolved. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in selecting Mother as the residential parent and legal custodian.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(c) permits a court to terminate a shared parenting decree at a parent's request or when the plan is not in the child's best interest.

Ackley v. Haney · filed 2022-07-11(E)(2)(c)

According to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a court may terminate a shared parenting ... decree upon request of one or both of the parents, or if the shared parenting plan is not in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(A) grants broad authority to allocate parental rights and responsibilities, but requires that allocation to follow R.C. 3127.01 to 3127.53 and does not automatically confer jurisdiction over child support.

Smoske v. Sicher, 2006-G-2720 (10-19-2007) · filed 2007-10-19(A)

This particular point eviscerates the argument that subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of child support is automatically conferred through R.C. 3109.04 (A) and 3105.65 (B) merely because Sicher submitted to the court's personal and subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. Chapter 3127. Although R.C. 3109.04 (A) generally grants broad powers to the court in determining parental rights and responsibilities, it has the additional requirement that the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities be done "in accordance with sections 3127.01 to 3127.53 of the Revised Code * * *." (Emphasis added).

Section 3109.04 governs the allocation of parental rights in domestic relations cases and does not apply to legal custody proceedings for neglected children.

In Re A.C., Ca2006-12-105 (7-2-2007) · filed 2007-07-02(D)(2)

R.C. 3109.04 governs allocation of parental rights in domestic relations cases and is therefore not applicable here.

Section 3109.04 gives trial courts broad discretion in allocating parental rights and responsibilities for minor children, with reversal requiring an abuse of that discretion.

Galloway v. Khan, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2006) · filed 2006-12-12

A trial court is vested with broad discretion to decide matters relating to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of minor children, and its decision is subject to reversal only upon a demonstration of an abuse of that discretion.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) applies to domestic relations custody matters involving divorce, dissolution, or legal separation; its procedure does not apply when the custody case originated in juvenile court.

In Re Snyder, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2006) · filed 2006-06-22(D)(2)

We then point out that R.C. 3109.04 (D)(2), the statute cited by the grandmother, is applicable to the domestic relations court when determining custody matters involving divorce, dissolution, or legal separation. ... This procedure specified in R.C. 3109.04 (D)(2) does not apply where the case originated in juvenile court.

Section 3109.04 gives the juvenile court authority to decide who receives a child’s care and custody.

In Re M.S., Unpublished Decision (1-5-2005) · filed 2005-01-05

Under R.C. 3109.04 , the juvenile court had the authority to decide to whom the care and custody of M.S. should be given.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) provides for certification to juvenile court when neither parent should be designated residential parent; it has no application when the court designates one parent.

Mills v. Mills, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2003) · filed 2003-12-05(D)(2)

Thus, since the trial court designated Lorri the residential parent, the court had no reason to apply R.C. 3109.04 (D)(2).

Section 3109.04 does not govern a juvenile court custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent that falls under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2).

Ives v. Ives, Unpublished Decision (7-2-2002) · filed 2002-07-02

The trial court correctly determined that this action fell within the coverage of R.C. 2151.23 (A) rather than R.C. 3109.04 and then proceeded to conduct a determination of parental suitability.

Section 3109.04 applies the best interests standard to custody disputes between parents arising from divorce, legal separation, or annulment, not to a custody dispute between a parent and grandparents.

Harrold v. Collier, Unpublished Decision (7-31-2002) · filed 2002-07-31

The "best interests" of the child standard of review applies in R.C. 3109.04 custody hearings between parents emanating out of a divorce, legal separation, or annulment. Since the present case involved a father and grandparents, the trial court correctly precluded appellants' evidence as to the "best interests" of the child because that standard did not apply to the custody hearing.

Section 3109.04(D) primarily governs custody arising from divorce and does not apply to a custody dispute between a parent and nonparents.

In Re Hollowell, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2002) · filed 2002-11-18(D)

Revised Code § 3109.04 (D) is primarily concerned with custody arising out of a divorce action and is inappropriate to the case sub judice.

Section 3109.04(A) makes the exercise of Ohio custody jurisdiction subject to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, so Ohio juvenile-court jurisdiction does not preclude another state from exercising jurisdiction under that act.

In Re Simons · filed 1997-03-07(A)

We agree with appellants that the juvenile court does have jurisdiction over this matter. However, we do not agree with their claim that the jurisdiction of the Ohio juvenile court precludes a court of another state from properly exercising jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the UCCJA. Instead, we conclude that the UCCJA must be utilized in determining the jurisdiction issue. In reaching this conclusion, we rely upon the language contained in R.C. 2151.23(F)(1) and 3109.04(A), both of which specifically state that the exercise of jurisdiction under these statutory provisions is subject to the terms of the UCCJA.

Section 3109.04 gives a common pleas court jurisdiction to determine parental rights upon the filing of a valid divorce proceeding.

McCree v. McCree, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2000) · filed 2000-03-22

R.C. § 3109.04 grants a common pleas court the power to determine parental rights, "[i]n any divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding * * *" Since we have already reiterated the validity of the initial divorce proceeding, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine parental rights upon its filing.

Section 3109.04(A) does not authorize a court to allocate parental rights once a child turns eighteen years of age.

Rose v. Rose, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2000) · filed 2000-06-28(A)

R.C. 3109.04 does not provide a court with the authority to allocate parental rights of a child once the child turns eighteen years of age.

Section 3109.04 gives courts a continuing duty to protect children’s best interests in custody and visitation disputes, which parents cannot displace through an arbitration agreement.

Kelm v. Kelm · filed 2001-07-05(B)(1) and (E)(1)(a)

The trial court has a continuing responsibility under R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) and (E)(1)(a) to protect the best interests of the children. As we have already held, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate custody and visitation disputes impermissibly interferes with the court’s ability to carry out this responsibility.

Section 3109.04(B)(2) neither requires nor prohibits the court from appointing counsel for minor children when their guardian ad litem's recommendation conflicts with their expressed wishes.

Sinsky v. Matthews, Unpublished Decision (8-8-2001) · filed 2001-08-08(B)(2)

While it is true that R.C. 3109.04 (B)(2) does not mandate that the court appoint counsel in this instance, it does not prohibit it either. Therefore, the magistrate did not err in appointing counsel to represent the minor children.

Section 3109.04 does not apply to a juvenile dependency custody proceeding outside the proceedings listed in subsection (A), so its child interview provision does not govern.

Lichtenwalter v. Stark Cty. Dept. of Jobs & Family Servs. · filed 2012-01-09(A)

However, we find R.C. 3109.04 is not applicable in the instant action. R.C. 3109.04 is applicable “[i]n any divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding and in any proceeding pertaining to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of a child, * * *.” R.C. 3109.04(A). The instant action did not involve any of the enumerated proceedings.

Together with § 3105.21, § 3109.04 gives a domestic relations judge basic statutory jurisdiction to issue orders allocating parental rights and responsibilities for minor children.

France v. Celebrezze · filed 2012-10-29

In addition, pursuant to R.C. 3105.21 and R.C. 3109.04, Judge Celebrezze possesses the basic statutory jurisdiction to issue orders with regard to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor children of the marriage.