Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) presumes that the current residential parent should remain in place when a court considers modifying parental rights and responsibilities.

Trudell v. Trudell · filed 2012-10-29(E)(1)(a)

The modification of parental rights and responsibilities is controlled by R.C. 3109.04(E). This statute creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of retaining the residential parent.

Section 3109.04 gives a domestic relations judge basic statutory authority to issue orders allocating parental rights and responsibilities for children of a marriage.

France v. Celebrezze · filed 2012-12-20

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.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court may modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities; without that change, the court need not determine the child’s best interests.

Toth v. Toth · filed 2013-03-07(E)(1)(a)

Because the court here did not find a change in circumstances, it was not required to determine the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a qualifying change in circumstances arising or discovered after the prior decree and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest.

Alexander v. Alexander · filed 2013-06-07(E)(1)(a)

In all matters involving a modification of parental rights and responsibilities, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) also expressly requires that a court find, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change of circumstances of the child, the residential parent, and a parent subject to a shared parenting decree has occurred and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) gives a domestic relations court statutory jurisdiction to reallocate parental rights by committing a child to a relative or certifying the matter to juvenile court when neither parent should have custody.

J.A.N. v. J.M.N. · filed 2022-01-10(D)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(D)(2), however, the domestic court has statutory jurisdiction to remove a child from the custody of the residential parent and legal custodian through a reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(C) leaves psychological examinations in custody proceedings to the trial court’s discretion and gives a requesting party no right to choose the examiner.

Yazdani-Isfehani v. Yazdani-Isfehani · filed 2006-12-26(C)

Thus, both R.C. 3109.04(C) and Civ.R. 35(A) place the decision to order an investigation clearly within the trial court’s sound discretion. Additionally, we note that neither the statutory provision nor the rule affords the party seeking such an examination the right to select the professional who will conduct the examination.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court to consider a parent’s smoking in deciding the child’s best interest and selecting a residential parent.

Pierce v. Pierce · filed 2006-09-21(F)(1)

Given these health risks, courts have concluded that whether a parent smokes is a proper factor to consider when making child custody determinations. ... We cannot disagree.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) allows a court to consider the health risks of secondhand smoke when setting restrictions to protect children in a best-interest determination.

Day v. Day, Unpublished Decision (8-22-2005) · filed 2005-08-22(F)(1)(e)

We note R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(e) requires a court to consider "[t]he mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation" in making a best-interest determination. ... Upon review of the record, we are unpersuaded the trial court abused its discretion in crafting a provision to protect the parties' children from secondhand smoke.

Section 3109.04(C) permits a court to order psychological evaluations of parents and children before trial, and denial of a request for evaluations is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Weaver v. Weaver, Unpublished Decision (8-9-2004) · filed 2004-08-09(C)

Revised Code 3109.04 concerns psychological evaluations and the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. ... R.C. 3109.04 (C). This court's standard of review is abuse of discretion. ... We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion. Appellant waited until after the third day of the final divorce hearing to file a request for psychological evaluations.

Section 3109.04(C) gives the trial court discretion to order psychological evaluations in a custody case.

Bowers v. Bowers, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2005) · filed 2005-06-30(C)

Under this statute, the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to order psychological evaluations.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) makes the mental and physical health of the child and parents relevant to a custody award.

Gill v. Gill, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2003) · filed 2003-01-16(F)(1)(e)

Of major importance, as stated in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(e), is the mental and physical health of not only the child but also the parents. R.C. 3109.04 places the mental conditions of all family members squarely in issue.

A parent’s mental and physical condition, as it relates to the ability to parent, is a criterion in a custody determination.

Sweet v. Sweet, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2005) · filed 2005-12-29(F)(1)(e)

In seeking custody of the minor children, Lori's mental and physical condition, as it relates to her ability to parent her children, constituted one of the criteria to be considered by the court, under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(e), and Lori waived the physician-patient privilege, but solely in regard to that issue.

A party seeking custody places mental and physical health at issue under the best-interest factors, allowing the court to order release of psychological treatment records for in-camera review.

Signer v. Signer, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2006) · filed 2006-07-13(F)(1)(e)

In a custody proceeding, any party seeking custody has put his or her mental and physical health in issue. R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(e) describes what factors the court shall consider: ... The trial court did not err, therefore, in ordering Julie to provide a release of her psychological treatment records for an in-camera review by the court.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) makes a parent’s mental health relevant to custody, and a court deciding that parent’s ability to care for a child may need to evaluate the parent’s medical information and prognosis.

Hageman v. Southwest Gen. Health Ctr., Unpublished Decision (12-21-2006) · filed 2006-12-21(F)(1)(e)

In order for the domestic relations court to make an effective decision regarding appellant's ability to adequately care for his child, it was necessary for the court to evaluate his medical information and prognosis.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) permits a court to assess mental health as a custody factor from the evidence without first ordering a psychological evaluation.

In Matter of M.E.H., 08ca4 (7-10-2008) · filed 2008-07-10(F)(1)(e)

Here, the record shows that the father is mistaken. The court did not order a psychological evaluation to determine the "mental * * * health of all persons involved" under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(e). The court heard evidence and decided that the R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) (e) factor favored the mother.

Section 3109.04(C) leaves psychological examinations to the trial court’s discretion, including whether to order one on its own after trial.

In Re S.M.K., 2008 Ca 17 (12-19-2008) · filed 2008-12-19(C)

The decision whether to order a psychological evaluation lies in the trial court's sound discretion. ... We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's failure to order a psychological or psychiatric evaluation, sua sponte, after the trial.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) allows courts to consider a parent’s life circumstances when assessing mental health; the factor is not limited to diagnosed mental illnesses.

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez · filed 2013-10-07(F)(1)(e)

All of these life circumstances are relevant to Penny’s mental health; R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(e) is not limited to diagnosed mental illnesses.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) requires the court to consider the mental and physical health of all persons involved when allocating parental rights and responsibilities, including a parent’s anger management issues.

Zeitoun v. Zeitoun · filed 2013-12-19(F)(1)(e)

Samira also contends that the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to consider Raghib’s anger management issues, in violation of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(e), which requires the court to consider the mental and physical health of all persons involved when allocating parental rights and responsibilities. But the record reflects that the trial court expressly found that both Samira and Raghib have mental health and anger management issues that affected the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and visitation. Furthermore, the trial court ordered that supervised visits outside Ohio could not begin until Raghib had presented the guardian ad litem with certification that he was engaged in an anger management counseling. Thus, it is apparent that the trial court considered Raghib’s mental health issues before ordering supervised visits.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) requires courts allocating parental rights to consider the mental and physical health of all persons involved, even if a party has not raised health concerns.

Friedenberg v. Friedenberg · filed 2019-02-04(F)(1)(e)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(e) provides that a court “shall” consider the “mental and physical health of all persons involved” when making a determination of the best interest of the child for the purposes of allocating parental rights and responsibilities in a child custody dispute. ... While Belinda argues that her mental and physical condition were not brought into question, the statute requires consideration of these factors regardless of whether they were raised by Keith, although the fact that he sought disclosure of such records arguably amounts to raising the issue of possible mental health concerns.

Section 3109.04 requires a custody court to consider the mental and physical health of everyone involved as part of the children’s best interests, even when no party specifically challenges health.

Friedenberg v. Friedenberg (Slip Opinion) · filed 2020-06-18(F)(1)(e)

When allocating parental rights and responsibilities, a trial court must take into account the best interests of the children, R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), and in doing so, it must consider “all relevant factors, including * * * (e) [t]he mental and physical health of all persons involved,” R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court deciding a child’s best interests to consider the effect of separating young siblings and a parent’s availability to care for them.

Zhuravlyov v. Bun · filed 2020-08-17(F)(1)

We conclude the trial court’s conclusion that splitting the children between each parent would be contrary to their best interests was reasonable and proper. Moreover, the trial court’s decision to allocate primary parental rights and responsibilities to husband was appropriate under the circumstances because he works from home and is therefore more accessible.

Section 3109.04 permits a court to reject shared custody when the proposed arrangement lacks support as being in the children's best interest.

A.O. v. R.O. · filed 2020-11-05

We lack a transcript of the hearing to fully review this issue, Johnson v. Johnson, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-84, 2019-Ohio-5138, ¶ 15, and, regardless, find no support for appellant's contention that shared custody between the parties, particularly in the manner suggested by appellant, would be in the best interest of the children. Appellant has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in ordering appellee to serve as the sole legal custodian and residential parent of the children.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best interest factors that a juvenile court may use for guidance in deciding legal custody.

In re H.K. · filed 2020-11-25(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also look to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance.

Section 3109.04’s best-interest standard applies to a request to terminate a guardianship that permanently transfers custody, as part of the good-cause inquiry under § 2111.46.

In Re Guardianship of Dillon, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2006) · filed 2006-09-29

We find likewise. ... The Sanders Court held the "good cause" standard for removing a guardian set forth in R.C. 2111.46 encompasses the best interest of the child standard described in R.C. 3109.04 when the guardianship affects a permanent transfer of custody. ... Assuming arguendo, mother is able to satisfy the first prong of the Sanders test, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding mother failed to prove a change of custody would be in Brenden's best interest.

Section 3109.04(A) does not require the best-interest-of-the-child test when terminating a guardianship that was intended to be temporary.

In Re Termination of Guardianship of Hendrickson · filed 2003-03-10(A)

R.C. 3109.04 is part of the domestic relations statute but by its own terms applies to “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). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive as applied to the facts of this case. ... Therefore, using the logic of the Sanders case, the temporary guardianship could be terminated for “good cause” without applying the more stringent “best interest of the child” test.

Section 3109.04(C) permits the court to assess custody investigation costs, but a party cannot be required to pay a court-appointed evaluator’s full-day witness fee before the hearing.

Jeskey v. Jeskey, Unpublished Decision (9-13-2004) · filed 2004-09-13(C)

While the Revised Code and the Civil Rules permit the court to assess costs in proportions and at times determined by the court, it is difficult to see how the court could allocate reasonable fees before the fact. By requiring a party to pay a full day's witness fee prior to his appearance, the court has in effect determined before hand the fee is reasonable, regardless of the amount of time the expert actually spent in court. Additionally, appellee also has the right to cross-examine the expert, and if he does so, might be expected to bear some of the costs. In other words, we find to order any party to pay the fee prior to the hearing is inappropriate.

Section 3109.04(C) permits a court to tax the costs of psychological examinations equally between the parents as investigation expenses.

Tinnel v. Tinnel, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2003) · filed 2003-03-21(C)

In this case, the court did not abuse its discretion under R.C. 3109.04 (C) when it taxed the costs of the psychological examinations evenly between Cynthia and Timothy.

Section 3109.04 governs custody determinations in juvenile court, but not disposition after an unruly adjudication.

In Matter of Sauers, 13-07-04 (7-2-2007) · filed 2007-07-02

A distinction must be made between a determination of custody in a juvenile court and a placement or disposition of a child after a finding that such child is neglected, dependent, delinquent or unruly. R.C. 3109.04 is applicable to the former and R.C. 2151.35.3, 2151.35.4, and 2151.35.5 are applicable to the latter.

Section 3109.04(F) best-interest factors should be considered when applicable in custody proceedings following dependency or neglect, but they need not be expressly considered and balanced for an award under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3).

In Re Fulton, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2003) · filed 2003-11-10(F)

While there does not appear to be any definitive test or set of criteria to apply in determining the best interest of a child in parental custody proceedings incident to a dependency and neglect action, this court has previously held that the juvenile courts should consider the totality of the circumstances, including, to the extent they are applicable, those factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F). See In re Tyler Cloud (May 19, 1997), Butler App. No. CA96-01-002. There is, however, no statutory mandate that they be expressly considered and balanced before fashioning an award of custody under R.C. 2151.353 (A)(3).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the relevant best-interest factors when awarding custody; findings supported by competent, credible evidence sustain the award.

Baker v. Baker, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2004) · filed 2004-02-06(F)(1)

Here, the trial court's November 13, 2002 decision, as summarized above, clearly demonstrates that it considered all of the relevant statutory factors. After reviewing the factors, the court found that appellee "demonstrated the more appropriate parenting skills." Upon careful review, we conclude that the findings made by the court in its decision are supported by competent, credible evidence.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) factors may guide a juvenile court’s best interest determination in a custody dispute involving nonparents, to the extent the factors apply.

In Re R.N., Unpublished Decision (8-24-2004) · filed 2004-08-24(F)(1)

In our view, when making custodial determinations in such circumstances, a juvenile court should consider the totality of the circumstances, and may, to the extent they are applicable, look to the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) for guidance.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider all relevant best-interest factors and provide some basis for its custody award.

Derrit v. Derrit · filed 2005-09-09(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides that in determining the best interest of a child, the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the following: ... However, the court failed to provide a basis for its determination. Accordingly, the trial court’s failure to provide a basis for its custody designation results in an abuse of discretion, and appellee’s fourth assignment of error has merit to the limited extent indicated. Upon remand, the trial court must provide some basis for its award of custody to appellant.

Section 3109.04(F) supplies best-interest factors for divorce custody decisions; juvenile courts may use those factors as a guide in parent–nonparent custody disputes.

In Re Bell, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2005) · filed 2005-12-12(F)

Trial courts are encouraged to consult the best interests factors found in R.C. § 3109.04 (F), dealing with child custody determinations in divorce cases, as a guide in child custody disputes between a parent and nonparent.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a custody award to reflect the child's best interest after consideration of its listed factors.

Brown v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005) · filed 2005-12-23(F)(1)

In determining which parent should be awarded custody of a minor child in a divorce proceeding, the trial court is to consider what is in the child's best interest using the factors set out in R.C. 3109.04 (F). ... Because the trial court considered the relevant factors and its decision regarding custody is supported by the evidence, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting custody of Isabella to appellee.

Section 3109.04 supplies a sufficient best interest standard for a juvenile court legal custody determination when Title 21 contains no definitive standard.

In Re Bixler, Unpublished Decision (7-10-2006) · filed 2006-07-10

While R.C. 3109.04 is found within Title 31, the Domestic Relations section of the Revised Code, we find that section to be sufficient to make a best interest determination herein because Title 21, the Probate and Juvenile section of Revised Code, contains no definitive standard.

The best-interest factors in Section 3109.04(F)(1) may guide a legal-custody decision, but the court need not expressly consider and balance each factor so long as it considers all factors relevant to the child’s best interest.

In Re S.J., Unpublished Decision (12-6-2006) · filed 2006-12-06(F)(1)

In such cases, Fulton indicated that courts should consider the totality of the circumstances, including relevant factors of R.C. 3109.04 (F), but also cautioned that there is no statutory mandate that those factors must be expressly considered and balanced together before fashioning an award of custody. ... In legal custody cases, trial courts should consider all factors relevant to the best interest of the child. ... The trial court is not obligated to include every piece of evidence which it considered in its judgment entry, however, and there is no indication that the trial court, in this case, failed to consider all factors relevant to the best interest of the child, including evidence regarding the Mother-child relationship.

Section 3109.04(F) provides relevant best-interest factors for legal custody decisions, but does not require courts to expressly consider and balance those factors before awarding custody.

In re A.P. · filed 2011-01-31(F)

The Fulton Court indicated, when determining the issue of legal custody, courts should consider the totality of the circumstances, including relevant factors of R.C. 3109.04(F). The Fulton Court, however, cautioned there is no statutory mandate those factors must be expressly considered and balanced together before fashioning an award of custody. Fulton, 2003-Ohio-5984, at ¶ 11. Accordingly, in legal custody cases, trial courts should consider all factors relevant to the best interest of the child.

A court modifying parental rights must consider the statutory best interest factors; if the record does not show that it did, the matter must be remanded for that determination.

In re M.T. · filed 2012-02-13(F)(1)

If it is not apparent from the record that the court considered the best interest factors, this Court must remand the matter to the trial court for the trial court to make that determination in the first instance.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best-interest factors for allocating parental rights in domestic relations cases, and courts may also consider those factors in legal custody cases.

In re A.G. · filed 2012-04-11(F)(1)

While R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) applies to the “allocation of parental rights in a domestic relations case[,]” these factors may also be considered in legal custody cases.

Section 3109.04(F) best-interest factors may inform a juvenile legal-custody decision under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), but the court need not analyze those factors separately.

In re S.L. · filed 2013-03-06(F)

Therefore, the court properly considered the best interest factors in making its determination regarding the grandparents' motion for legal custody and was not required to separately analyze the R.C. 3109.04(F) factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best-interest factors appropriate for deciding legal-custody motions in abuse, dependency, and neglect cases.

In re K.Y. · filed 2013-07-12(F)(1)

The part of the statute, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), upon which the juvenile court in this case relied merely sets forth the factors to use in determining the best interest of the child. This court has agreed that these best-interest factors are appropriate in determining motions for legal custody in abuse, dependency and neglect cases.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides the best-interest factors a court considers when a grandparent seeks legal custody of a child.

In re A.B. · filed 2013-08-05(F)(1)

Therefore, we will next analyze whether denying Grandparents' custody motion was in the best interests of the children, and return to the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... After considering the evidence and the manner in which the juvenile court balanced the best interest factors, we do not find that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Grandparents' motion for custody.

Section 3109.04(F) does not require a juvenile court deciding legal custody after a dependency adjudication to use its best-interest factors instead of guidance from R.C. 2151.414(D).

In re K.C. · filed 2014-02-05(F)

In this case, the trial court applied the best interest test set forth in R.C. 2151.414, but Father argues that the appropriate factors are set forth in the best interest test of R.C. 3109.04(F). Father cites no case law to support his position that the trial court applied the wrong test and “this Court has held that the best interest test set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D), although it relates to permanent custody, ‘provide[s] guidance’ in legal custody determinations.” In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-Ohio-5003, ¶ 9, quoting In re T.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006–Ohio–4468, ¶ 17.

Section 3109.04(F) supplies relevant best interest factors for a legal custody decision, but the court need not expressly consider and balance each factor.

In re D.T. · filed 2014-06-09(F)

... relevant factors of R.C. 3109.04(F). The Fulton Court, however, cautioned there is no statutory mandate those factors must be expressly considered and balanced together before fashioning an award of custody. Fulton, 2003-Ohio-5984, at ¶ 11. Accordingly, in legal custody cases, trial courts should consider all factors relevant to the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F) best-interest factors may guide a juvenile court awarding legal custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), but the court need not expressly consider and balance them.

In re P.G. · filed 2016-04-04(F)

Although there is no statutory mandate that the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F) be expressly considered and balanced ... before fashioning an award of custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), a juvenile court may consider those factors, as well as any other relevant factors, in making its custody determination.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors for a legal-custody motion, including parental wishes, the child’s relationships and adjustment, the health of those involved, and the likelihood of honoring visitation.

In re A.K. · filed 2017-10-06(F)(1)

In the context of a legal-custody motion, the pertinent best-interest factors are found in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). In re J.T., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27343, 2017-Ohio-1303, ¶ 11. As relevant here, they include (1) the parent’s wishes, (2) the child’s interaction with parents, siblings, and others, (3) the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community, (4) the mental and physical health of all persons involved, and (5) the parent (or party) more likely to honor visitation.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors may guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody after a dependency adjudication.

In re A.J. · filed 2017-12-20(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also look to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the relevant best-interest factors for a temporary custody decision, including the parents’ and child’s wishes, the child’s relationships and adjustment, and the mental and physical health of those involved.

In re M.M. · filed 2018-05-25(F)(1)

A court determines a child's best interest using the relevant factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that it was in M.M.’s best interests pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) to be placed in the temporary custody of the maternal aunt.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a juvenile court deciding a motion for legal custody to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest.

In re D.E. · filed 2018-08-20(F)(1)

Similar to the best interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D), in the context of a motion for legal custody, the juvenile court is required to consider all relevant factors listed under R.C. 3109.04(F) in determining the best interest of a child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best interest factors for custody modification, but using the similar factors in § 3109.051(D) in a dispute between nonparents can be harmless error.

P.K. v. J.V. · filed 2018-12-28(F)(1)

Considering the similarity between R.C. 3109.051(D) and 3109.04(F)(1), the additional factors in R.C. 3109.051(D), the lack of specific statutory guidance for a custody modification between non-parents, and the trial court's ability to consider the totality of the circumstances to determine the best interests of the child, we find it was harmless error in this case for the trial court to utilize the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.051(D).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the applicable best-interest factors when modifying custody, and a decision supported by the record is within the trial court’s discretion.

Garrett v. Ewing · filed 2018-09-17(F)(1)

The trial court analyzed each and every factor and determined that Ewing should be named residential parent and legal custodian. The trial court illustrated a number of issues with Garrett that were all supported by the record.

Section 3109.04(F) factors may inform a juvenile court’s best-interest determination when awarding legal custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), but the court need not expressly consider and balance each factor.

In re M.D.R. · filed 2019-03-25(F)

Although there is no statutory mandate that the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F) be expressly considered and balanced before fashioning an award of custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), a juvenile court is certainly entitled to consider those factors, as well as any other relevant factors in making its custody determination.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best-interest factors for legal custody decisions, including the parents’ wishes, the child’s relationships and adjustment, and the mental and physical health of those involved.

In re T.L.W. · filed 2019-08-02(F)(1)

In its decision, the trial court recited the appropriate best-interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), which applies to legal custody determinations. In particular, the trial court noted that the pertinent factors included, but were not limited to, “the wishes of the parents; the child’s interactions and interrelationships with parents, siblings, and other persons who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; the child’s adjustment to home, school and community; and the mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation.”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best-interest factors that a court may use when deciding whether to award legal custody of a dependent child to a nonparent.

In re X.H. · filed 2020-07-31(F)(1)

In making such a determination, the magistrate properly looked to the best interest factors of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), and the court adopted the findings.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best-interest factors that a juvenile court may consider when deciding custody after a child is adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent, as an alternative to the factors in § 2151.414(D).

In re E.S.K. · filed 2020-12-07(F)(1)

As this court has previously recognized, a juvenile court may consider the best interest factors set forth in either R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) or R.C. 2151.414(D) when making a custody determination after a child has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent. In re K.S., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-01-009, 2019-Ohio-2384, ¶ 37.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors may guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody after an abuse or dependency adjudication.

In re Z.T. · filed 2021-06-16(F)(1)

In addition, the juvenile court may also look to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best interest factors that a juvenile court may use as guidance when awarding legal custody; the court need not apply them instead of the factors in section 2151.414(D).

In re K.B. · filed 2021-09-20(F)(1)

A court may therefore consider the relevant best interest factors set forth in either R.C. 3109.04(F) or R.C. 2151.414(D) as guidance in determining the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors a court considers when awarding legal custody of a child adjudicated dependent, neglected, or abused.

In re C.T. · filed 2021-11-12(F)(1)

In awarding legal custody to Tina and David, the juvenile court reviewed all the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), as well as those in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), to decide the best interest of the children. We will do the same, focusing on the hearing testimony in addition to the record as outlined above, and the particular factors that are pertinent here.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best interest factors that a juvenile court may consider when deciding legal custody after an adjudication of neglect, dependency, or abuse.

In re A.D. · filed 2022-03-16(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also consider the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies optional best-interest factors for a juvenile court deciding legal custody under § 2151.353(A)(3).

In re P.C. · filed 2022-08-08(F)(1)

“While not required, to determine the best interest of a child for purposes of R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), trial courts may be guided by the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) or 2151.414(D).”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors may guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody after an abuse, neglect, or dependency adjudication.

In re L.L. · filed 2022-12-14(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also consider the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the statutory best-interest factors when allocating parental rights, and a custody decision is supported when the court considers those factors and its findings rest on competent, credible evidence.

Bradshaw v. Bradshaw · filed 2022-07-18(F)(1)

Thus, the record indicates that the trial court thoroughly considered the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) statutory factors when determining that naming Ricki as the residential parent of T.B. and F.B. was in the children’s best interest.

A juvenile court may consider the best interest factors in Section 3109.04(F)(1) when awarding legal custody after an adjudication of neglect or dependency.

In re A.J. · filed 2022-10-31(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also consider the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F) requires a juvenile court deciding legal custody to consider all relevant listed factors bearing on the child’s best interest.

In re A.M. · filed 2023-05-08(F)

In order to determine the best interest of a child in a legal custody proceeding, the juvenile court is required to consider all relevant factors listed under R.C. 3109.04(F).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a juvenile court deciding legal custody to consider the children’s adjustment to home, school, and community and the proposed custodian’s likelihood of facilitating parenting time.

In re S.V. · filed 2023-05-31(F)(1)(d),(f)

The juvenile court may also consider the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... While many factors overlap with those set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), separate factors that are relevant in this case are the children’s adjustment to their “home, school, and community;” and the proposed custodian’s likelihood to honor and facilitate visitation or parenting time.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies instructive best-interest factors for legal-custody decisions, but the juvenile court need not make specific findings on each factor.

In re R. Children · filed 2023-06-28(F)(1)

Nevertheless, this court has held the best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and 2151.414(D) are instructive. In re F.B.D. at ¶ 12. Because the factors are instructive and not mandatory, the juvenile court does not have to make specific findings on each factor.

In a dependency case, a juvenile court may use § 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors to guide a legal-custody decision without making specific findings on each factor.

In re J.M.C. · filed 2023-10-06(F)(1)

In making that determination, the juvenile court may turn to the best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and 2151.414(D) for guidance. ... As these factors are instructive and not mandatory, the juvenile court does not have to make specific findings on each factor.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors may guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody of an abused, neglected, or dependent child.

In re I.C., S.C. · filed 2023-12-26(F)(1)

Nevertheless, we have previously concluded that juvenile courts may be guided by the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) (the permanent-custody factors) or R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) (factors employed in private-custody disputes) since they may be instructive.

In a juvenile legal custody decision, the court may consider the best-interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1), including the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community and the proposed custodian’s willingness to facilitate parenting time.

In re K.F. · filed 2023-12-29(F)(1)(d), (F)(1)(f)

The juvenile court may also apply the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... While many factors overlap with those set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), separate factors that are relevant in this case are the children’s adjustment to their “home, school, and community[]” and the proposed custodian’s likelihood to honor and facilitate visitation or parenting time.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody after a dependency adjudication may consider the best interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1).

In re M.K. · filed 2024-11-25(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also consider the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a juvenile court deciding legal custody to consider its best interest factors.

In re M.J. · filed 2025-02-18(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also consider the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)’s best-interest factors may guide a court deciding a petition for legal custody.

In re A.H. · filed 2025-08-01(F)(1)

Courts may consider R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)’s best-interest factors when determining a child’s best interest in a legal-custody decision.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors may guide a juvenile legal-custody decision, but the court need not consider them when awarding legal custody.

In re A.O. · filed 2025-10-28(F)(1)

The statutory scheme governing legal custody does not provide specific factors for a trial court to consider when determining the child’s best interests, but it is generally appropriate for a trial court to consider the best interest factors contained in the statute governing the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in divorce actions, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... Accordingly, although the factors in R.C. 3019.04(F)(1) and 2151.414(D)(1) may be instructive on the issue of a child’s best interests, the trial court is not required to consider those factors when determining legal custody.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best-interest factors that a juvenile court may consider when deciding legal custody.

In re K.D. · filed 2026-04-15(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also consider the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) governs the allocation of parental rights in divorce or legal separation; its factors differ from those governing legal custody in this juvenile proceeding.

In re M.F. · filed 2016-04-25(F)(1)

Appellant initially framed her assignment of error under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), which provides for the allocation of parental rights in a divorce or other ... legal separation. ... We note, however, that the factors to be considered by the trial court under these two statutes are different and render some of her arguments irrelevant (e.g., whether either parent has failed to make child support payments).

A juvenile court awarding legal custody of a dependent or neglected child to a nonparent need not consider every best interest factor in Section 3109.04(F)(1).

In re K.P. · filed 2019-05-24(F)(1)

As there is no requirement for the juvenile court to consider all of the best interest factors set forth in ... either R.C. 2151.414(D) or R.C. 3109.04(F) when awarding legal custody of a child to a nonparent, “we must presume the juvenile court is free to consider any best interest factors it deems appropriate.”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best-interest factors relevant to legal custody decisions, but courts need not expressly balance each factor.

In re D.P. · filed 2011-04-18(F)(1)

The Fulton Court indicated, when determining the issue of legal custody, courts should consider the totality of the circumstances, including relevant factors of R.C. 3109.04(F). The Fulton Court, however, cautioned there is no statutory mandate those factors must be expressly considered and balanced together before fashioning an award of custody. Fulton, 2003-Ohio-5984, at ¶ 11. Accordingly, in legal custody cases, trial courts should consider all factors relevant to the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04 gives the trial court broad discretion to designate a child’s school district under a shared parenting order according to the child’s best interests.

Zulch v. Zulch, Wd-06-073 (6-22-2007) · filed 2007-06-22(G)

Further, when ordering shared parenting, R.C. 3109.04 requires a trial court to designate one of the parties' residences as the child's residence for school enrollment purposes. ... Under the trial court's broad discretion in determining the school district designation, we find no abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04 requires consideration of the child’s best-interest factors when designating a residential parent for school purposes under a shared parenting plan.

Fee v. Fee, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003) · filed 2003-12-15(F)(1)

The trial court noted that it considered all the factors under R.C. 3109.04 relating to the best interest of the child in making its determination. The court's decision regarding the naming of the residential parent was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.

Section 3109.04 requires a court ordering shared parenting to designate one parent’s residence as the child’s residence for school enrollment.

Wei v. Shen, Unpublished Decision (11-24-2003) · filed 2003-11-24

When ordering shared parenting, R.C. 3109.04 requires a trial court to designate one of the parties' residences as the child's residence for school enrollment purposes.

A court may designate a residential parent for school purposes under a shared parenting plan by applying the best-interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1), subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Van Pelt v. Van Pelt · filed 2016-04-22(F)(1)

In determining the best interest of the child, the trial court considered the following factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1): ... The issue before the trial court was close. We conclude that the trial court’s decision is neither arbitrary, unreasonable, nor unconscionable.

Section 3109.04(G) allows a trial court to consider school placement in a shared parenting plan even when the child is not yet school age, if the court finds it relevant to the child’s best interests.

Hawbecker v. Hawbecker · filed 2016-09-02(G)

However, in this case, there is no issue as to the legal sufficiency of the shared parenting plan and the magistrate and trial court found school placement to be a relevant factor pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(G), despite M.H.’s age. We find such a determination not to be an abuse of discretion as the trial court has the discretion to determine which factors are relevant and to determine how those factors apply to the child’s best interests.

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

Dennis v. Dennis · filed 2022-04-13(E)(2)(b)

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), the trial court can modify the terms of the shared-parenting plan so long as the modification is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(2)(b) governs a shared-parenting-plan change to the residential parent designated for school purposes and requires a best-interest finding, without a change-in-circumstances finding.

In re N.J.V. · filed 2025-02-06(E)(2)(b)

Under the well-established precedent, therefore, R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) governs this case. The trial court erred in requiring mother to demonstrate a change in circumstances for the modification she sought.

When a court allocates parental rights without a shared parenting plan under § 3109.04(A)(1), the sole residential parent and legal custodian controls school placement, and the court cannot give that right to the other parent.

Dimitrievska v. Dimitrievski · filed 2025-05-29(A)(1)

Pursuant to Smith, the trial court erred by designating Biljana as the sole residential parent and legal custodian but also designating Ante as the residential parent for school placement purposes should Biljana move out of the school district. Because the trial court impermissibly divided Biljana’s custodial rights as the custodial parent, we sustain the seventh cross-appeal assignment of error. ... Therefore, we follow Smith because the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities was determined by the court under R.C. 3109.04(A)(1) and not by a shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(h) requires consideration of a parent’s domestic violence conviction, but the conviction need not determine which parent receives residential parenting rights.

Hussein v. Hussein, Unpublished Decision (11-28-2005) · filed 2005-11-28(F)(1)(h)

Upon review, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not using the two year old domestic violence conviction to be a determining factor in the custody issue.

Section 3109.04(C) makes a domestic violence conviction one of many factors considered when awarding custody of a minor child.

State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (8-19-2005) · filed 2005-08-19(C)

A conviction for domestic violence under R.C. § 2925.19 is only one of many factors to be considered by the trial court pursuant to R.C. § 3109.04 (C) when making a determination as to whom custody of a minor child should be awarded.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(h) requires a conviction before violent conduct counts under its domestic-violence factor.

Clark v. Clark, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2004) · filed 2004-03-24(F)(1)(h)

Karen's actions on that day do not weigh against her under this factor because the language of the statute requires a conviction. Since she was not convicted (a complaint was never filed), this factor is inapplicable.

Section 3109.04(C) requires a court to determine whether naming a parent convicted of domestic violence as residential parent serves the children’s best interests and to make specific written findings supporting that determination.

Morrison v. Morrison · filed 2014-05-28(C)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(C), the trial court was required to determine whether it was in the best interest of the children to name Husband the residential parent and to make specific written findings of fact to support its determination.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(h) does not treat physical violence underlying a civil protection order as satisfying that specified best-interest factor, though the violence may be considered as other relevant custody evidence.

Sovern v. Sovern · filed 2016-10-31(F)(1)(h)

While evidence of physical violence giving rise to a CPO is not properly considered under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(h), that evidence may be properly considered as other relevant evidence for the trial court’s custody determination.

Section 3109.04(C) permits a parent who pleaded guilty to assaulting a household member to be named residential parent only if the court finds the placement is in the child’s best interest and makes specific written findings of fact.

In re M.A.G. · filed 2023-05-24(C)

The portion of R.C. 3109.04(C) that applies to the appellee, in light of his 2015 guilty plea to assault, is the language regarding an “other offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense.” Thus, in order to designate the appellee as residential parent the trial court was required to determine that such an allocation was in the best interest of M.G., and was required to make specific written findings of fact to support its determination, both of which the trial court satisfied in its sixty-four (64) page judgment entry.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits courts to consider allegations of domestic violence and abuse as additional factors in the child’s best-interest analysis.

Mahbub v. Mahbub · filed 2025-12-31(F)(1)

Regardless, while Mr. Mahbub is correct that domestic violence is not an express factor under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), the statute allows a court to consider additional factors in its best-interest analysis. As such, allegations of domestic violence and abuse in any form are probative as to concerns over mental health and the ultimate custody determination.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not govern changes to a temporary custody order; the court need only apply the child’s best-interest standard until a final allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Williams v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (7-30-2004) · filed 2004-07-30(E)(1)(a)

Our review of the applicable case law demonstrates, however, that R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) is not the applicable law under the current circumstances. ... In effect, when a court modifies a temporary custody order, a court need only apply the best interest standard.

A court-approved shared parenting agreement that originally awards joint custody to a grandparent may be modified only under the child’s best-interest test, even when the parent remains suitable.

In Re Delucia v. West, Unpublished Decision (12-21-2005) · filed 2005-12-21(E)(1)(a)

It re-emphasized that the general rule in Ohio, as codified in R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) and (E)(1)(a), is that once an original custody award has been made, that award will not be modified unless necessary to serve the best interest of the child. ... Thus, in order to modify the shared parenting/joint custody agreement, the juvenile court should have applied the best interest test instead of the suitability test.

Section 3109.04(A) authorizes temporary custody and support orders during a divorce proceeding even when the parents still live together.

Nunnari v. Paul, Unpublished Decision (10-19-2007) · filed 2007-10-19(A)

We find that the authority to award temporary custody and support lays in R.C. 3109.04 (A) which states: ... This statute refers to "any divorce proceeding" and makes no mention of the parties' living arrangements. Thus, the temporary order in this case issued during the pendency of the parties' divorce was valid.

A court cannot modify an existing custody order or reach the child’s best interests unless it first finds a change of circumstances affecting the child or residential parent.

Cravens v. Cravens, Ca2008-02-033 (4-13-2009) · filed 2009-04-13(E)(1)(a)

While R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) does not expressly set forth a two-tiered analysis in modifying, post decree, the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, the simple truth is that absent a mandate from the legislature or the Ohio Supreme Court that a finding that "modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child" can, in and of itself, be found to constitute a change of circumstances, a trial court never reaches the best interest determination unless it first finds a change of circumstances in the life of either the child or the residential parent. Without the mandated finding of a change of circumstances, the trial court's analysis ends.

Section 3109.04(E) requires changed circumstances for a custody modification after a final allocation, but the test does not apply to the first final order following temporary custody orders.

Mummey v. Mummey · filed 2010-09-07(E)

The changed circumstances test in R.C. 3109.04(E) only applies when modifying custody after the final allocation, and it does not apply merely because temporary orders had been issued.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify a final custody decree, but the requirement does not apply when a court replaces temporary orders with its initial allocation of parental rights.

Robinette v. Bryant · filed 2013-06-27(E)(1)(a)

Here, R.C. 3109.04(E) and its change in circumstances test are inapplicable because the trial court had not yet entered a final decree regarding the parties’ parental rights. Although the magistrate had entered temporary orders, they do not qualify as a final decree.

Whether circumstances have changed enough to modify an existing custody order under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is a factual determination.

In re R.L.H. · filed 2014-08-07(E)(1)(a)

Whether a change in circumstance has occurred sufficient to warrant modification of a prior custody order is necessarily a factual determination.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) applies to modification of a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, but not to temporary or interlocutory orders.

King v. King · filed 2016-04-25(E)(1)(a)

We first note that the juvenile court inappropriately considered the factors under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). This section applies to motions to modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, but it does not apply to temporary orders or interlocutory orders.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not govern a parent’s request to modify legal custody held by third parties under a prior agreement; its change-in-circumstances requirement applies to modifications between parents.

In re A.M. · filed 2017-09-20(E)(1)(a)

Moreover, this case does not involve a modification of parental rights and responsibilities as contemplated by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1), because the dispute is not between a residential and nonresidential parent, or parents subject to a shared parenting decree. Rather, the dispute is between a parent and third parties who hold legal custody, in this case by prior agreement of the parties.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a court considering a custody modification to consider facts that predate the prior decree if those facts were unknown to the court when it issued the decree.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2018-09-28(E)(1)(a)

Unknown circumstances that occur prior to a decree assigning parental rights are proper for a trial court to consider pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not govern the first final custody order entered after a temporary custody order; the court instead applies the child’s best-interest standard.

Ash-Holloway v. Holloway · filed 2022-11-28(E)(1)(a)

Here, as in Williams, the existing custody order which was in effect during the pendency of the divorce proceeding was temporary. The court issued its final custody order in the underlying divorce decree. Because there was no modification of a final custody order, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is inapplicable. We must consequently determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding W.H.’s best interests were served by granting mother residential-parent status.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of custody orders between parents and nonparents as well as orders between two parents.

Anders v. Seitz · filed 2023-03-06(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) applies to the modification of custodial orders not only between two parents, but also between parents and nonparents.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court modifying a parental-rights decree to find a change in circumstances before deciding whether modification serves the child’s best interest.

Rios v. Bassett-Bocker · filed 2025-07-01(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), modification of a decree that allocates parental rights and responsibilities involves the threshold question of whether a change of circumstances occurred, and if so, then the question is whether modifying the prior decree is required to fulfill the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) applies to modification of a prior decree allocating parental rights and requires a change in circumstances, the child's best interest, and one of three additional factors.

In Re Kruthaupt, C-080405 (3-27-2009) · filed 2009-03-27(E)(1)(a)

The language is similar to language in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), which applies to the modification of a prior decree that has allocated parental rights. Under that section, if parental rights have been allocated in a decree, before modifying the decree, the trial court must find that there has been a change in circumstances, that the modification would be in the best interest of the child, and that one of three factors applies.

Section 3109.04(C) requires that a custody investigation report be available for review, but does not require giving either parent a physical copy.

Goodman v. Goodman, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2005) · filed 2005-03-14(C)

Neither R.C. 3109.04 (C) nor R.C. 2317.39 dictates the manner in which the report must be made available and accessible. Furthermore, neither statute states that the parties should receive a copy of the report.

Section 3109.04 does not require the trial court to state reasons for a custody decision when the parties have stipulated to custody.

Phillis v. Phillis · filed 2005-11-14

Having been advised of such a stipulation as to custody, the trial court did not have to list its reasons pursuant to R.C. 3109.04.

Parties who agree to a custody modification procedure may waive a challenge to the court’s failure to make Section 3109.04 findings, so long as their agreement is voluntary and consistent with the child’s best interest.

Melvin v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (9-19-2006) · filed 2006-09-19

In view of this stipulation, we are unwilling to conclude that the trial court erred by failing to issue R.C. 3109.04 findings.

Section 3109.04(C) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law when a court designates a parent as residential parent or orders shared parenting despite that parent’s conviction of specified offenses or an adjudication finding that parent committed abuse.

Reid v. Shaffer · filed 2020-11-25(C)

But, as Spon makes clear, the requirement for findings of fact and conclusions of law in R.C. 3109.04(C) applies only where the trial court decides to designate a parent as the residential parent or issue a shared parenting decree despite that parent's conviction of certain criminal offenses or a finding in an adjudication that the parent perpetrated abusive acts. R.C. 3109.04(C) is not implicated in this case.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances when modifying a prior custody award to a nonparent, but the Perales parental unsuitability standard governs a nonparent’s first contested request for custody from a parent.

In Re Kovaleski, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2006) · filed 2006-01-17(E)(1)(a)

In other words, if a parent has custody of her minor child, a custody dispute with a nonparent is determined under the Perales standard; but, if a custody award has previously been made to a nonparent, the party seeking to modify that award must show a change in circumstances even if the noncustodial party is a parent and the custodial party is a nonparent.

Section 3109.04 requires a finding that both parents are unsuitable before a court may modify a divorce custody decree to award legal custody to a nonparent.

Smith v. Boyd, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2006) · filed 2006-12-28

Accordingly, we hold that when a nonparent moves to modify an original custody decree, arising out of a divorce proceeding which granted legal custody to a child's natural parent, the trial court shall not award a nonparent legal custody of the child or children until it has first determined that both parents are unsuitable under In re Perales .

In a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent, the court reaches the best-interest analysis under § 3109.04(F)(1) only after finding the parent unsuitable.

In re A.D.B. · filed 2016-10-03(F)(1)

In determining the best interest of a child, the trial court is required to consider all relevant factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... However, as this court recently stated, "the best interest standard in a child custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent applies only after a threshold determination that the child's parents are deemed unsuitable."

Section 3109.04(D)(2) does not apply to a custody dispute between a parent and nonparent that did not originate from divorce proceedings.

O'Conner v. Stires · filed 2017-12-11(D)(2)

Because this case involves a custody dispute between a parent and nonparent and did not originate from divorce proceedings, R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) does not apply.

Section 3109.04 gives a domestic relations court jurisdiction to allocate parental rights for a child who remains a legal minor because of mental disability despite being over eighteen.

Wiczynski v. Wiczynski, Unpublished Decision (2-24-2006) · filed 2006-02-24

The jurisdiction of the domestic relations court as applied to the instant case is set forth at R.C. 3109.04 . R.C. 3109.04 provides that "[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, * * * the [domestic relations] court shall allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor children of the marriage." ... Stated otherwise, Jeffrey, because of his mental condition (and despite his chronological age), was properly found by the trial court to be a minor.

When a custody decree expressly or impliedly restricts removal of a child from the jurisdiction, the custodial parent seeking to move the child bears the burden of showing that the decree should be modified to permit removal.

Salisbury v. Salisbury, Unpublished Decision (7-7-2006) · filed 2006-07-07(E)(1)

However, the analysis changes when the divorce decree expressly or impliedly prohibits the custodial parent's ability to remove the child from the jurisdiction. In such cases, the burden then shifts to the custodial parent to demonstrate that the decree should be modified to permit the child's removal.

Section 3109.04(A) requires the court to hear testimony and allocate parental rights in the children’s best interests even when a parent has not answered the divorce complaint; that duty cannot be resolved by default.

Rue v. Rue · filed 2006-09-29(A)

... and (2) pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(A) “after hearing the testimony of either or both parents,” to allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor children of the marriage “in a manner consistent with the best interest of the children.” The performance of this independent judicial duty does not lend itself to judgment by default.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) does not authorize a domestic relations court to place children in the custody of a children services agency; the court may certify the case to juvenile court instead.

Curie v. Curie, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2006) · filed 2006-11-17(D)(2)

Although we sympathize with the trial court judge, he did not have authority to do so. He should have certified the case to the juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (D)(2) or made a referral to ACCSB, and it in turn, could have filed a complaint for emergency custody in the juvenile court.

Section 3109.04(A) does not require a hearing when parents file an agreed joint shared parenting plan and allocation of parental rights is uncontested.

Drescher v. Nuttal, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2007) · filed 2007-02-08(A)

{¶ 13} In this case, unlike Snouffer , the parties filed an agreed joint shared parenting plan, evincing that the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities were not in controversy. Consequently, a hearing was not mandatory.

When neither parent requests shared parenting, § 3109.04(A)(1) requires the court to specify the other parent’s remaining rights and responsibilities, including parenting time.

In re I.B. · filed 2012-10-03(A)(1)

The trial court was also charged with specifying the residual parental rights and responsibilities of the other parent. But on our record, the court did not do so.

Section 3109.04(A) may require a hearing to determine whether a mediated parenting agreement serves the child’s best interest, even when both parents signed it.

In re M.S. · filed 2013-09-19(A)

In our interpretation of R.C. 3109.04(A), a mediation agreement does not necessarily relieve the obligation of the trial court to hold a hearing to determine if the terms of the agreement are in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04 requires courts allocating parental rights in a divorce involving minor children to consider the children’s best interests.

C.D. v. T.D. · filed 2025-10-31(F)(1)

In any divorce action involving minor children of the marriage, the court must “allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children primarily to one of the parents, designate that parent as the residential parent and the legal custodian of the child, and divide between the parents the other rights and responsibilities for the care of the children,” taking into consideration the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) considers missed child support payments in the best-interest analysis only when a child support order required those payments.

Kost v. Gembus, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007) · filed 2007-03-02(F)(1)(g)

The plain language of 3109.04(F)(1)(g) requires the court to consider "[w]hether either parent has failed to make * * * child support payments * * * that are required of that parent pursuant to a child support order under which that parent is an obligor." (Emphasis added).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) requires a court deciding a child’s best interest to consider evidence of unpaid child support; leaving support motions undecided does not satisfy that factor.

Rice v. Lewis, 08ca3238 (4-10-2009) · filed 2009-04-10(F)(1)(g)

The trial court must follow the procedures described in R.C. 3109.04 to determine the best interest of the Child. Miller v. Miller (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 71 , 74 . This includes considering the nonpayment of child support. Merely stating that it "withheld ruling" on Lewis's support motions does not adequately satisfy this factor, especially when there is competent and credible evidence that Rice had withheld child support.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) considers missed child support payments only when they were required by a child support order under which the parent was an obligor.

Cotterill v. Turner · filed 2009-10-26(F)(1)(g)

To begin with, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(g) concerns whether either parent has failed to make child support payments “required of that parent pursuant to a child support order under which that parent is an obligor.” As the magistrate found, this factor was not applicable because no support order was in place since Turner left Ohio prior to the HCCSEA administrative hearing.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) makes a parent’s unpaid child support for another child relevant to the custody best interests analysis.

Morrison v. Robinson · filed 2013-02-11(F)(1)(g)

One of the best interests factors for the juvenile court to consider in making its decision under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) states that the court shall consider "whether either parent has failed to make all child support payments, including all arrearages, that are required of that parent pursuant to a child support order under which that parent is an obligor." R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(g). {¶ 47} The record indicates father is the obligor to and in arrears for child support for his 16-year-old daughter. The statutory language appears to find that evidence relevant for consideration. ... Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that father failed to make child support payments for his 16-year-old child.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) requires a court that does not order shared parenting to allocate parental rights and responsibilities, including responsibility to support the children.

Seelbaugh v. Montgomery Cty. Common Pleas Court · filed 2024-12-02(A)(1)

Further, in cases in which shared parenting is not ordered, the court must allocate parental rights and responsibilities including “the responsibility to provide support for the children.” R.C. 3109.04(A)(1). Therefore, the DR Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to order the payment of child support in Seelbaugh’s case and to enforce its own orders, as challenged in the petition, is beyond doubt.

Section 3109.04(B)(2)(c) protects the confidentiality of a child’s in-chambers custody interview; parents may access its sealed transcript only by court order.

Chapman v. Chapman, 21652 (6-15-2007) · filed 2007-06-15(B)(2)(c)

We agree that the transcript of an in camera interview with a child must not be made available to the parents absent a court order. ... R.C. 3109.04 (B)(2)(c) makes clear the legislative intent to provide an in camera atmosphere free of influence, pressure and anxiety so that, if appropriate, a child can participate in the determination of his or her custody.

Section 3109.04(B)(1)'s child interview requirement does not apply when the interview request is, in essence, a motion to withdraw the parties' prior custody stipulation.

Meyer v. Meyer, 2006ca00145 (2-4-2008) · filed 2008-02-04(B)(1)

We find Wife's request the trial court to interview Samantha was, in essence, a motion to withdraw the parties' prior stipulation; therefore, R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) is inapplicable.

Section 3109.04 does not require a court to interview children in a custody proceeding unless a party requests it.

Klayman v. Luck · filed 2012-07-26(B)(1)

In child custody proceedings, a court is not required to interview the children without a request by one of the parties to do so. R.C. 3109.04. Klayman never requested the court interview the children.

Section 3109.04(B) requires in camera interviews with a child to remain confidential.

Rownd v. Marcelli · filed 2016-09-30(B)

This Court has consistently interpreted the pertinent sections R.C. 3109.04(B) such that in camera interviews are to remain confidential.

Section 3109.04(B) authorizes in-chambers interviews of children in custody proceedings but does not expressly prohibit disclosure of the interviews.

State v. Ruggles · filed 2020-05-11(B)

The statutes that set forth a trial court's authority to conduct in chamber interviews of children during custody or visitation proceedings do not expressly prohibit disclosure of these interviews. R.C. 3109.04(B) and 3109.051(C). Additionally, both statutes allow, in the trial court's discretion, the attorneys of the parents to be present for the interview.

Section 3109.04(B)(2)(c) and (B)(3) keep children’s in-camera interviews confidential and do not require disclosure of their contents to the parents.

Ricksecker v. Ricksecker · filed 2026-03-02(B)(2)(c), (B)(3)

Father contends the magistrate should not have considered the wishes of the children, as obtained during the in-camera interview of the children, without making specific findings of fact - developed from the in-camera interview - in her judgment entry. However, this Court has “interpreted sections (B)(2)(c) and (3) of R.C. 3109.04 to mean in-camera interviews are to remain confidential.” Lawson v. Lawson, 2013-Ohio-4687, ¶ 53 (5th Dist.). In-camera interviews with children are confidential and not to be disclosed to the parents. Facemyer v. Facemyer, 2025-Ohio-205, ¶ 34 (7th Dist.).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(b) permits only a parent to seek modification of a prior custody decree to grant shared parenting; a child cannot maintain that request independently after the parent withdraws it.

Hanna v. Hanna · filed 2008-07-15(E)(1)(b)

According to the plain language in R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(b), only plaintiff and defendant, as the minor child’s parents, could invoke the court’s continuing jurisdiction to modify a prior custody decree and grant shared parenting. The right of action is not in the child; it is in his parents and is jurisdictional. The minor child’s status as a party is contingent upon (1) one or both of the minor child’s parents bringing and maintaining the action under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(b) and (2) the court’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction in the matter.

When only one parent requests shared parenting, § 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii) permits the court to deny the request if shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest.

August v. August · filed 2014-09-15(D)(1)(a)(iii)

Under R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(iii), where, as here, “only one parent makes a request” for shared parenting and the trial court determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the child, the trial court may deny a party’s motion requesting shared parenting and proceed as if the request for shared parenting had not been made.

Section 3109.04(G) requires a parent to file a pleading or motion requesting shared parenting before the court may consider it.

In re V.B. · filed 2018-06-19(G)

Here, neither parent “file[d] a pleading or motion,” as required under R.C. 3109.04(G), requesting the court to grant both parents shared parental rights and responsibilities for the care of V.B. Therefore, shared parenting was not an issue before the court.

When shared parenting is unsuitable, § 3109.04(A)(1) requires the court to designate only one parent as residential parent and legal custodian.

Andrew P. v. Jessy Z. · filed 2008-08-15(A)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(A) allows only one parent to be named the residential parent and legal custodian when a shared-parenting plan cannot and should not be adopted.

A court changing the designation of residential parent and legal custodian must determine that circumstances have changed before analyzing the child’s best interests.

Wright v. Wright · filed 2012-04-02(E)(1)(a)

Based upon the Fisher holding, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand the matter for a determination on "change of circumstances" prior to entering into a best interests analysis.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) permits an order to designate a parent as sole legal custodian implicitly when it names that parent the primary residential parent, the accompanying worksheet identifies that parent as legal custodian, and neither parent seeks shared parenting.

Szeliga v. Szeliga · filed 2012-05-04(A)(1)

It is clear that the trial court intended to designate Ms. Szeliga as the residential parent and legal custodian of the child. It is also clear that Mr. Szeliga was not so named. We construe the order of the trial court as providing that Ms. Szeliga is the sole legal custodian of the child.

Under a sole custody order, designating a parent as the residential parent also makes that parent the legal custodian with primary rights over the child’s care, custody, and control.

Funkhouser v. Funkhouser · filed 2019-03-01(L)(2)

The magistrate’s and the trial court’s use of the term “residential parent” for appellant with respect to N.F. without the added words “and legal custodian” did not diminish the effect of the trial court’s June 14, 2018 order modifying N.F.’s custody arrangement. The June 14, 2018 order did not include a shared parenting order, and it designated appellant as the “residential parent” of N.F. That order allocated to appellant primary parental rights and responsibilities for N.F.’s “care, custody, and control.”

When a court finds that neither parent should have custody, it cannot dismiss the case and merely refer it to children’s services; it must follow subsection (D)(2) by certifying the case to juvenile court if it does not commit the child to a relative.

Horn v. Frazier, 08 Ca 000068 (1-7-2009) · filed 2009-01-07(D)(2)

Upon review, the trial court found that it was not in the best interest of the children to be placed with either parent, dismissed the case and referred the matter to Licking County Children's Services. Based upon the record, we find that the trial court erred in failing to certify the case to the juvenile court, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (D)(2), for further proceedings.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) requires a domestic-relations court to find that neither parent should be the residential parent and legal custodian in the child’s best interest before certifying a custody case to juvenile court.

Thompson v. Valentine · filed 2010-08-30(D)(2)

R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) requires the domestic-relations court to find that it is in the best interest of the child for neither parent to be designated the residential parent and legal custodian before transferring the case to juvenile court under R.C. 3109.04. It is clear that the domestic-relations court in the case at bar faded to make the requisite best-interest finding before purportedly certifying the case to juvenile court under R.C. 2151.23(A)(1).

When a domestic-relations court certifies an ongoing divorce-custody case to a juvenile court under subsection (D)(2), the transferred custody matter remains governed by § 3109.04.

In Re A.G. · filed 2014-06-19(D)(2)

When the Henry County Domestic Relations Court certified this case to the Henry County Juvenile Court under R.C. 3109.04(D)(2), all matters related to the original divorce-custody case continued to be domestic-relations matters, governed only by R.C. 3109.04.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) permits certification to juvenile court when neither parent having custody is in the child's best interest; certification with the juvenile court's consent under section 3109.06 does not require that finding.

Haynes v. Haynes · filed 2017-05-08(D)(2)

R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) authorizes a domestic relations court to certify a case to the juvenile court upon finding "that it is in the best interest of the child for neither parent to be designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the child[,]" that is, upon finding it is in in the best interest of the child for neither parent to have custody. ... Unlike the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) certification process, certification pursuant to R.C. 3109.06 does not require a finding that the best interest of the child is for neither parent to have custody of the child.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) does not authorize a domestic-relations court certifying a parental-rights matter to juvenile court to provisionally place the child in a children-services agency’s custody.

State ex rel. Richland Cty. Children Servs. v. Richland Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Slip Opinion) · filed 2017-12-22(D)(2)

In cases involving certification to the juvenile court, the statute does not authorize a provisional order of custody to a children-services agency.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) requires competent, credible evidence supporting a finding of parental unsuitability before a domestic relations court may certify the custody matter to juvenile court.

Bowman v. Mizer · filed 2018-08-27(D)(2)

However, in this case, neither party had the opportunity to put any evidence on the record at the hearing because the hearing was continued. No substantive issues regarding the motions at issue were discussed during the hearing. Accordingly, we find the trial court’s determination of parental unsuitability and certification to the Juvenile Division was not based upon competent and credible evidence.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) permits certification of a custody matter to juvenile court for further proceedings without permanently divesting a parent of parental rights.

Whitson v. Whitson · filed 2019-10-10(D)(2)

In the case at bar, the trial court did not permanently divest Mother of all of her parental rights; rather the court certified the case to the juvenile court under R.C. 2151 “for further proceedings.” R.C. 3109.04(D)(2).

Section 3109.04(D)(2) requires a best-interest determination before a domestic relations court certifies parental-rights issues to juvenile court.

M.K. v. R.K. · filed 2023-09-28(D)(2)

The domestic relations court invoked R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) as the basis of the certification. That statute requires a best-interest determination, which the trial court failed to make.

Section 3109.04 generally requires a divorce court to allocate parental rights and responsibilities, but the court need not take jurisdiction over the children when a juvenile court has already begun deciding their custody.

Lindenmayer v. Lindenmayer · filed 2011-10-27

R.C. 3109.04 mandates that in a divorce proceeding, the court shall allocate parental rights and responsibilities regarding the minor children of the marriage. However, Ohio law also recognizes the “the bedrock proposition that once a court of competent jurisdiction has begun the task of deciding the long-term fate of a child, all other courts are to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over that matter.” ... We therefore find no merit in appellant’s claim that the trial court erroneously failed to assert jurisdiction over the children under these circumstances.

A court lacks jurisdiction to modify an allocation of parental rights after the child is emancipated.

Schumann v. Schumann · filed 2010-11-10

Because the younger daughter was no longer a “child,” but was emancipated, the trial court was without subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the order of parental rights as of the May 6, 2009 journal entry.