Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

In deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest, the court must consider the general best interest factors in (F)(1) and the shared parenting factors in (F)(2).

In re A.F. · filed 2019-11-12(F)(2)

With regard to whether shared parenting is in the child's best interest, the trial court must consider the previously discussed best interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and the specific factors pertaining to shared parenting set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(2).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider the applicable best-interest factors, but does not require it to explicitly match each factor to the supporting evidence.

In re M.W. · filed 2019-12-06(F)(1)

Although the trial court did not explicitly match each best-interest factor to the evidence pertaining to it, the trial court had no such obligation. The record need only reflect that the trial court “considered” the applicable best-interest factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(d) identifies a child’s adjustment to home, school, and community as a best interest factor that may guide a juvenile court’s legal custody decision.

In re A.M. · filed 2019-12-18(F)(1)(d)

The juvenile court may also look to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. ... Of relevance here, an additional factor set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) is the child’s adjustment to her home, school, and community.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider a nonexclusive set of relevant best-interest factors when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

N.G. v. M.P. · filed 2020-02-14(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides a nonexclusive listing of relevant factors that a juvenile court shall consider in determining the best interest of a child for purposes of allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child. ... Nonetheless, under the present circumstances, upon review, we indulge in the presumption that the magistrate and judge duly considered the statutory “best interest” factors, and we hold the court's ultimate decision to put in place a modified shared parenting plan in lieu of a year-round plan does not constitute an abuse of discretion or compel us to attempt to substitute our judgment.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest.

Whitaker v. Whitaker · filed 2020-05-04(F)(1)

In order to determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the trial court to consider all relevant factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the best-interest factors when allocating parental rights, and a supported allocation may stand despite some mistaken factual findings.

Armbruster v. Armbruster · filed 2020-07-27(F)(1)

After reviewing the criteria listed in Section 3109.04(F)(1), we cannot say that the trial court exercised improper discretion when it determined that it is in the best interest of the child for Father to be the child’s legal custodian and residential parent.

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

In re K.G. · filed 2020-08-19(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) best-interest factors can support legal custody to relatives when a child is bonded to them, adjusted to their home, and doing well there, despite a parent’s wish to reunify.

In re M.J.H. · filed 2020-09-11(F)(1)

While Mother wished to reunify with her children, other factors in R.C. 3109.04(F) strongly supported the juvenile court’s decision. Collins testified that the children were “most certainly” bonded to Aunt and Uncle and to their daughter, that they were adjusted to their home, and were “doing great.”

In deciding a child’s best interest for legal custody, the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including applicable factors in § 3109.04(F).

In re L.C. · filed 2020-09-28(F)

The juvenile court properly considered all relevant factors, including those set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F), in determining that it was in L.C.'s best interest to award Maternal Grandmother legal custody.

Section 3109.04 treats a parent’s likelihood of honoring and facilitating court-approved parenting time as a factor in the child’s best interests when allocating custody.

In re L.L. · filed 2020-12-09(F)(1)(f)

Here, the juvenile court reviewed and properly applied the best- interest factors under R.C. 3109.04. ... The record supports the court’s finding that father is the parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights and visitation.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court deciding legal custody to consider all relevant best-interest factors, including the additional factors listed for permanent custody in section 2151.414(D).

In re C.W. · filed 2020-12-23(F)(1)

This court has recognized that considering the permanent-custody best-interest factors in a legal-custody case is not erroneous because R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) allows a trial court to consider “all relevant factors,” which might include the additional best-interest factors found in R.C. 2151.414(D).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts deciding a child’s best interest in allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider all relevant factors; a shared-parenting plan may be upheld when those factors are appropriately applied.

In re K.S. · filed 2020-12-23(F)(1)

The court appropriately considered and applied the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) in making those determinations.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts to consider all relevant factors when determining a child's best interest in allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Bonifield v. Bonifield · filed 2021-01-19(F)(1)

In order to determine the best interest of a child, the domestic relations court must consider all relevant factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a juvenile court deciding legal custody to consider all relevant best-interest factors, including those listed in the statute.

In re P.B. · filed 2021-02-16(F)(1)

In order to determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the juvenile court to consider all relevant factors, including those factors specified therein.

A request for shared parenting requires the court to consider the additional best-interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(2).

Michael v. Michael · filed 2021-03-29(F)(2)

A request for shared parenting also triggers additional best-interest factors that a court must consider under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) and 3119.23.

Section 3109.04(F) supplies parenting factors for allocation of parental rights, but its factors do not govern a juvenile court’s decision to place a child in a planned permanent living arrangement under Section 2151.414(D)(1).

In re H.H. · filed 2021-05-20(F)

Notwithstanding the juvenile court's erroneous reference to R.C. 3109.04(F), it is clear the juvenile court was not applying the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F) as cited below. Because the juvenile court cited R.C. 2151.415(C) and we are able to discern from the juvenile court's decision that it considered the appropriate factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), we find the juvenile court's erroneous reference to R.C. 3109.04(F) to not be prejudicial.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a juvenile court determining a child's best interest to consider all relevant factors.

In re Y.R. · filed 2021-06-01(F)(1)

In order to determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) ... requires the juvenile court to consider all relevant factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a juvenile court determining a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors.

In re K.G. · filed 2021-06-28(F)(1)

To determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the juvenile court to consider all relevant factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(i) requires a court allocating parental rights to consider whether a parent continuously and willfully denied the other parent court-ordered parenting time as a best-interest factor.

Bradley v. Bradley · filed 2021-07-22(F)(1)(i)

A trial court is required to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F) regarding allocating parenting time in order to determine the best interest of the child. In re E.B., 2020-Ohio-4139, 157 N.E.3d 826, ¶ 78 (8th Dist.). In this case, the magistrate fulfilled its requirement. The magistrate specifically considered the factor set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(i) and concluded that it was not applicable.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider all relevant factors, including those listed in the subsection, when determining a child’s best interest for a custody allocation.

Reisinger v. Topping · filed 2021-07-26(F)(1)

In order to determine the best interest of a child, the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including those enumerated in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights to consider all relevant best-interest factors and balance them in light of the record.

Marois v. Marois · filed 2021-08-16(F)(1)

To determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider all relevant factors. ... Based on a balancing of the factors and after a review of the entire record, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in designating Mother the residential parent and legal custodian of the two children and that such decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

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

In re F.D. · filed 2021-08-25(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) does not require a trial court to separately address each best-interest factor.

Clemens v. Clemens · filed 2021-09-07(F)(1)

There is no requirement that a trial court separately address each factor.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the trial court to consider the statutory best interest factors when modifying parental rights, and the record must show that consideration.

Baker v. Baker · filed 2021-09-30(F)(1)

Overall, it is not clear the magistrate and trial court considered the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) in determining whether the modification was in the best interest of C.B.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts deciding whether to award legal custody to consider its listed best-interest factors.

In re Ca.S. · filed 2021-10-26(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) specifies the best interest factors courts must consider when determining whether to award legal custody to a party requesting it.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides a nonexclusive list of factors for determining which dispositional order serves a child’s best interest.

In re J.H. · filed 2021-10-29(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides a non-exclusive list of factors to consider when determining which dispositional order is in the best interest of a child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors a court must evaluate when awarding legal custody of a child.

In re T.F. · filed 2021-11-19(F)(1)

Because the trial court appropriately evaluated the evidence and best- interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that legal custody in favor of M.H. and E.D. was in the children’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider all relevant best-interest factors, but does not require it to find that each factor favors one parent or the other.

Corson v. Corson · filed 2021-12-06(F)(1)

Specifically, “[t]here is no additional requirement that the trial court find that the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors weigh in favor of one party or the other. The trial court is required only to ‘consider all relevant factors.’”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best interest factors that a juvenile court may consider when awarding legal custody after a child is adjudicated neglected, dependent, or abused.

In re L.C. · filed 2022-01-26(F)(1)

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

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

In re A.P. · filed 2022-02-02(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors may guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody after a child is adjudicated dependent.

In re E.C. · filed 2022-04-13(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) leaves the weight assigned to its best-interest factors to the custody factfinder’s discretion.

Rushin v. Franks · filed 2022-04-27(F)(1)

As noted above, the magistrate has discretion to assign whatever weight is so chooses to the evidence presented and the factors to be considered in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of relevant best-interest factors when allocating parental rights, and a supported finding may justify designating a parent as residential parent.

M.M. v. V.S. · filed 2022-05-06(F)(1)

We also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it undertook an independent examination and analysis of the magistrate’s decision, considered the best interest factors which impacted the child, and determined the child’s best interest would be served by designating father as the residential parent of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors apply to allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, not to a recommendation on termination of parental rights.

In re A.S. · filed 2022-06-02(F)(1)

... (F)(1)(a) through (e)—which apply in the context of determining custody in the case of "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). In this case, the GAL was making a recommendation of best interest to the court regarding a motion for termination of parental rights, not allocation of parental rights.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining a child’s best interest, which a court may consider when deciding temporary custody.

In re V.D. · filed 2022-06-03(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides the following non-exhaustive list of factors for the court to consider when determining the best interest of a child: ... (j) whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside this state. ... The juvenile court set forth each of these factors and addressed the evidence of record relevant to each factor.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits courts deciding a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors, including factors beyond those it lists.

In re M.J.S. · filed 2022-04-01(F)(1)

“Notably, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) does not limit courts to just the listed factors; courts are permitted to consider ‘all relevant factors.’ Thus, the trial court could consider other factors, including those in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), if the court so chose.”

A juvenile court may consider the best interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1) when deciding whether to award legal custody.

In re C.B. · filed 2022-06-08(F)(1)

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

A juvenile court may consult the best-interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance when deciding legal custody after a child has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent.

In re E.B. · filed 2022-07-27(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) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider the enumerated best-interest factors.

A.A.O. v. A.M.O. · filed 2022-08-11(F)(1)

In making a best interest determination, the court must consider the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... Because the trial court’s allocation of parental rights and responsibilities was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, we find no abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04 requires consideration of best-interest factors relevant to the contested parental-rights issue; factors unrelated to a school-enrollment designation need not affect that determination.

In re G.D-M. · filed 2022-08-31(F)(1), (F)(2)

To the extent that Father contends that the trial court failed to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04, we remain mindful that Mother and Father entered into a mediated shared parenting agreement where the only remaining contested issue was who would be designated as the residential parent for the purposes of school enrollment. Many of the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) were not relevant to that determination. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) (requiring the court to consider “all relevant factors[.]”).

A juvenile court deciding legal custody may consider the proposed custodian’s likelihood of honoring and facilitating visitation as a best interest factor.

In re L.S. · filed 2022-09-19(F)(1)(f)

While many factors overlap with those set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), a separate factor relevant here is the proposed custodian’s likelihood to honor and facilitate visitation or parenting time. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides nonexhaustive best-interest factors that courts may consider when awarding legal custody of a child.

In re M.S. · filed 2022-09-23(F)(1)

“Notably, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) does not limit courts to just the listed factors; courts are permitted to consider ‘all relevant factors.’ ” In re C.N., K.N. and K.N., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27119, 2016-Ohio-7322, ¶ 51.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors may guide a juvenile court’s legal custody determination.

In re E.E.D. · filed 2022-11-10(F)(1)

A court may also look to the best-interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) in determining what is in a child’s best interest for purposes of a legal custody determination.

Section 3109.04(F) permits a court modifying a shared parenting decree to consider relevant circumstances also listed among the factors in § 3109.051(D), although those factors do not control the decision.

Keller v. Keller · filed 2022-11-17(F)

Moreover, although the R.C. 3109.051(D) factors are not controlling in shared parenting cases under R.C. 3109.04 pursuant to Bratz, we conclude that it was both acceptable and appropriate for the magistrate to observe both that Brandon might require limited child care and he spends a significant but specific amount of time in Columbus while still living in Cincinnati.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) best interest factors apply when shared parenting has been requested.

In re B.T.-H. · filed 2022-11-21(F)(2)

We note, however, that the best interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) are triggered when, unlike here, a request for shared parenting has been made.

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

In re X.L.L. · filed 2023-03-13(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) in determining the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court deciding legal custody to consider the child’s relationships and adjustment to home and community, the parent’s wishes, and who is most likely to facilitate visitation and parenting time.

In re D.L. · filed 2023-04-05(F)(1)

Turning to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), the relevant factors considered were Father’s wishes, the person most likely to facilitate visitation and parenting time, D.L.’s interactions and interrelationships, and his adjustment to his home and community.

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

In re C.P. · filed 2023-04-26(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 a nonexhaustive list of best-interest factors, and the court must consider all relevant factors when deciding custody.

Collier v. Smith · filed 2023-05-10(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that a court may consider in determining the best interest of a child; but, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04, the court shall consider “all relevant factors.”

Section 3109.04(F) supplies applicable best-interest factors that a juvenile court must consider, along with all other relevant factors, when deciding legal custody of an adjudicated child.

In re A.S. · filed 2023-05-15(F)

In determining the best interests of the child, the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the applicable factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F).

No single best-interest factor under § 3109.04(F)(1) controls the custody determination.

Davidson v. Hodge · filed 2023-05-17(F)(1)

Plus, no one statutory factor controls the juvenile court’s best-interest determination.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(f) permits a juvenile court deciding legal custody to consider which proposed custodian is more likely to honor and facilitate the other parent’s visitation or parenting time.

In re M.B. · filed 2023-05-31(F)(1)(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), a separate factor relevant here is the proposed custodian’s likelihood to honor and facilitate visitation or parenting time. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best interest factors a juvenile court may consider when deciding legal custody of a dependent child.

In re K.S. · filed 2023-06-12(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) in determining the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(a) makes a parent's wishes a best interest factor, but considering those wishes does not require the court to grant the parent's preferred custody arrangement.

In re K.S. · filed 2023-06-13(F)(1)(a)

For example, with regard to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a) (that is, the factor regarding "the wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's care"), Mother argues that the court disregarded that it was her wish for an extension of temporary custody and that she opposed legal custody being granted to Aunt and Uncle. ... Initially, we note that there is no evidence to support Mother's suggestion that the juvenile court ignored her wishes. But in essence, Mother's arguments amount to her disagreement with the juvenile court's ultimate decision rather than a disagreement with the facts supporting that decision.

In a dependency legal custody decision, the juvenile court may consider the best interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1).

In re Z.K. · filed 2023-06-28(F)(1)

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

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

In re W.W. · filed 2023-06-28(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(F)(2) permits a court to give substantial weight to a parent’s distrust and accusations against the other parent when deciding whether shared parenting serves the child’s best interest.

In re E.M. · filed 2023-06-28(F)(2)

The juvenile court then discussed the best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) regarding shared parenting. ... Ultimately, the juvenile court weighed mother’s lack of trust and accusations towards father most heavily in terminating shared parenting and awarding custody to father. This was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(f) treats willingness to facilitate parenting time as one best interest factor, which courts weigh with the totality of the circumstances rather than in isolation.

In re J.C. · filed 2023-09-14(F)(1)(f)

“The [party] more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights[.]” R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f). ... Appellant’s argument that we should consider this one factor in isolation is contrary to the totality-of-the-circumstances approach that courts apply when evaluating a child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) makes a parent’s parenting history relevant to the child’s best interest when it bears on the parent-child relationship and custodial history.

In re L.T. · filed 2023-11-15(F)(1)

Mother’s parenting history was directly relevant to the trial court’s best interest determination, as it pertained to Mother’s relationship with the children and their custodial history.

Section 3109.04(F) supplies the best-interest factors for custody and shared parenting decisions, but a trial court need not separately address each factor.

L.S. v. C.S. · filed 2024-01-19(F)

Factors for the trial court to consider on best interests and whether a shared parenting plan is in the child's best interests are found in R.C. 3109.04(F). There is no requirement that a trial court separately address each factor.

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

In re D.L. · filed 2024-03-06(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the custody record to support a conclusion that the trial court considered all relevant best interest factors.

Meyer v. Wile · filed 2023-12-19(F)(1)

If the record does not support the conclusion that all relevant factors were considered, the trial court has not complied with R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

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

In re R.D. · filed 2024-06-05(F)(1)(d), (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 child’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) best-interest factors may guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody after a dependency adjudication.

In re T.M. · filed 2024-06-28(F)(1)

The juvenile court may also apply the best interest factors in Section 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider the pertinent best-interest factors when awarding legal custody, and its application of those factors is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

In re D.D.J. · filed 2024-07-03(F)(1)

Considering the evidence presented at trial, the trial court explicitly applied the pertinent factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1); the transcript contains 11 pages of the trial court’s analysis. Assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court found mother’s allegations of sexual and physical abuse unsubstantiated and that mother’s persistent allegations despite the lack of proof are counter to the child’s best interest. Having reviewed the record and testimony presented in this case, we decline mother’s request to independently review the credibility of the witnesses and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody to father.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest findings that mainly concern custody may not justify limiting a parent’s parenting time.

Doss v. Doss · filed 2024-07-19(F)(1)

In support of the decision to award Holly legal custody and to grant Joseph “limited visitation” with their children, the visiting judge made findings on the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors governing the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. See May 3, 2021 Divorce Decree at p. 32-34. Most of those findings were more pertinent to custody than they were to serving as a justification for limiting Joseph’s parenting time.

In an initial allocation of parental rights, the child’s best interest requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including each parent’s ability to facilitate visitation and the distance between their homes; a parent’s suitability alone does not control.

In re C.R. · filed 2024-08-05(F)(1)

The court decided the allocation of parental rights, not a modification, and, even presuming that Rheins-Guire properly cared for her daughter and could be an appropriate legal custodian, the court had to take into account all of the circumstances and determine how parental rights would be best allocated given their ability to facilitate visitation as well as the distance between the two parents’ homes.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court to give greater weight to child support nonpayment and the likelihood of honoring parenting time orders when weighing the best interest factors.

J.T. v. L.H. · filed 2024-09-20(F)(1)

However, the court decided to place greater emphasis on the child support and the likelihood to honor court orders factors (R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f) and (g)) than the magistrate did, which was well within the court’s discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to give greater weight to some best-interest factors than others.

Cornwell v. Eufracio · filed 2024-09-23(F)(1)

Importantly, while the trial court placed greater emphasis on certain factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)—namely the factors relating to Eufracio’s relocation to Texas and the children’s support system in Ohio—it was permitted to do so.

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

In re L.W. · filed 2024-09-25(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides nonexclusive factors for a court to consider when determining a child’s best interest in a custody decision.

In re J.L.C. · filed 2024-10-16(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F) provides a list of non-exclusive factors for the trial court to consider in determining the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the relevant best-interest factors, but the judgment entry need not make a specific finding on every factor.

In re G.E.H. · filed 2024-10-21(F)(1)

“Though there should be some indication in the judgment entry that the trial court considered the best interests of the child pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F), there is no requirement it make specific findings in its entry as to each and every factor.”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best interest factors a court may consider when deciding whether to modify a juvenile legal custody order.

In re J.G. · filed 2024-03-21(F)(1)

The custody statute includes similar considerations and additionally lists the child’s adjustment, the mental and physical health of all involved, support arrearage, the history and likelihood of honoring visitation orders, certain criminal convictions, and establishment of a residence out of state or plan to do so. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

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

In re J.M. · filed 2024-11-27(F)(1)

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

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

In re M.P. · filed 2025-02-24(F)(1)

We have held that a trial court can be guided by the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) (the permanent-custody factors) and/or R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) (private custody factors), but both are merely instructive.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the pertinent best-interest factors, but the court need not expressly mention each factor when its findings show that it considered them.

In re W.E.-N. · filed 2025-03-07(F)(1)

As noted by Mother, the court did not specifically mention the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... On this record, we cannot conclude that the court failed to consider the pertinent statutory factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors are instructive in juvenile legal-custody decisions, although courts need not consider specific statutory factors in those decisions.

In re M.S. · filed 2025-04-04(F)(1)

To determine the best interest of the child in a legal-custody case, courts are not required to consider specific, statutory factors. In re R. Child., 2023-Ohio-2144, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). This court, however, has found the best-interest factors in R.C. 2124.414(D) and 3109.04(F), which govern custodial allocations in permanent and private custody disputes respectively, to be instructive. ... As applied to the relevant factors within R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), competent and credible evidence exists to support the court’s determination that it is in M.S.’s best interest to remain in M.B.’s care.

No single best-interest factor under § 3109.04(F)(1) controls a custody decision, including whether a parent has denied the other parent court-ordered parenting time.

B.M. v. P.M. · filed 2025-05-09(F)(1)

Finally, it was undisputed that Father did not interfere with Mother’s parenting time and that Mother denied Father parenting time twice after she obtained temporary custody. This factor is somewhat concerning, and the magistrate strongly admonished Mother to facilitate Father’s parenting time going forward. However, no one factor is controlling, and the balance of the applicable factors overwhelmingly favored awarding custody to Mother.

A juvenile court may rely on Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors when deciding legal custody of dependent children.

In re R.H. · filed 2025-04-17(F)(1)

Thus, the juvenile court did not err in relying on the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors when considering the best interests of R.H. and R.S.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors a juvenile court applies when deciding legal custody under Section 2151.353.

In re N.R. · filed 2025-08-15(F)(1)

The trial court also properly considered each factor under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and concluded that it was in N.R.’s best interest for legal custody to go to Father.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) lists non-exhaustive best-interest factors, and a court may give greater weight to children’s wishes based on their ages.

Sharp v. Richmond · filed 2025-08-18(F)(1)

Further, the list of factors found in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) is non-exhaustive, and the court was free to allocate greater weight to the children’s wishes due to their ages.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors are instructive, but do not control a legal custody decision involving a child adjudicated dependent.

In re A.W. · filed 2025-09-08(F)(1)

In making its best interest analysis, the trial court relied on the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a) through (j). These factors, while not controlling, are instructive.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of relevant best-interest factors but does not require a judgment entry to analyze each factor expressly when credible record evidence supports the decision.

Dinh v. Goble · filed 2025-12-01(F)(1)

However, although the trial court must consider all relevant factors, there is no requirement that the trial court explicitly analyze each factor in its entry, so long as the trial court’s judgment is supported by credible evidence in the record.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)’s best interest factors may guide a juvenile court’s decision whether to award legal custody of a dependent child.

In re A.D. · filed 2026-01-07(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider relevant best-interest factors when reallocating parental rights, but the judgment entry need not discuss each factor expressly if supported by competent, credible evidence.

Doster v. Doster · filed 2026-02-02(F)(1)

“Although the trial court must consider all relevant factors, there is no requirement that the trial court set out an analysis for each of the factors in its judgment entry, so long as the judgment entry is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” Id. ... Even though we find that although the trial court did not explicitly reference the best interest factors, we find that the judgment entry and findings of fact were guided by the best interest factors.

In a juvenile legal-custody decision, a court may consider the best-interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1), alone or together with § 2151.414(D) factors or general best-interest considerations.

In re S.L. · filed 2025-10-03(F)(1)

“To determine a child’s best interest, a trial court may consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D), R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), ‘a combination of the two, or general notions of what should be considered regarding the best interests of the child.’”

Section 3109.04 requires courts allocating parental rights to determine the child’s best interest by considering the statutory factors, including parental mental health and willingness to honor parenting time.

Humphrey v. Humphrey · filed 2025-11-26(F)(1)

When allocating parental rights and responsibilities, a court must determine the child’s best interest. R.C. 3109.04(B)(1). In making a best interest determination, the trial court considers the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... The trial court conducted an independent review of the magistrate’s decision, considered the applicable statutory factors, made credibility determinations within its discretion, and acted within its authority allocating parental rights and responsibilities. We find no abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors a court applies when awarding legal custody of a child.

In re A.B. · filed 2026-01-12(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) sets forth the factors which the trial court applied in the instant case in determining the best interest of the child: ... We find the trial court’s conclusion an award of legal custody to Appellee was in the best interest of A.B. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to Appellee.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest standard for requested SIJ findings in an allocation-of-custody proceeding.

Pelaez v. Moreno · filed 2025-12-11(F)(1)

The juvenile court also erred by failing make a finding under the applicable Ohio law concerning the best interests of the children in the context of the requested SIJ findings. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides the juvenile court with a framework for “determining the best interest of a child” in an allocation of custody proceeding. The statute states that “the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to” a list of ten enumerated factors. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). While the trial court referenced the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors in its allocation of custody, it did not use the best interests standard in that provision to make the findings requested by Ms. Vargas Pelaez.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider the applicable best-interest factors when designating a residential parent for school placement, with the weighing of the evidence left to the trial court.

Lupia v. Lupia · filed 2026-03-26(F)(1)

On review, we find the trial court considered the applicable best interest statutory factors in conjunction with all the evidence presented at the January 2025 trial (including the GAL report), made specific findings of fact, and weighed the evidence to determine that shared parenting with Ms. Lupia as the school placement parent was in G.L.’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) does not require a court to expressly discuss a parent’s primary-caregiver status when it addresses the statutory best-interest factors.

In re P.W. · filed 2026-04-24(F)(1)

While it appears from the juvenile court’s decision that it did not explicitly consider Mother’s status as P.W.’s “primary caregiver,” we do not find this alone to be an abuse of discretion because the trial court addressed the statutory factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

A juvenile court may consider § 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors when deciding legal custody in an abuse, neglect, or dependency case.

In re M.D. · filed 2026-05-26(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 relevant best-interest factors in a legal-custody decision, but the court need not discuss each factor separately if the record shows it considered them.

In re S.R. · filed 2026-06-26(F)(1)

“While the trial court need not explicitly reiterate its findings with regard to each best interest factor under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), it must be apparent from the record that the court considered the factors in its decision.” ... Although the trial court did not go through a factor by factor best-interest analysis in its order granting legal custody to Maternal Grandfather and D.N., the language of the order nevertheless indicates that the trial court considered relevant factors and concluded that it was in S.R.’s best interest to award legal custody to Maternal Grandfather and D.N.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) allows a court deciding a child’s best interest to consider relevant factors beyond those listed in the statute.

In re K.S.J. · filed 2026-06-11(F)(1)

In addition to any relevant listed factors, the cited standard custody statute allows the court to consider other factors the court believes are relevant.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the child’s best-interest factors when modifying a custody order, and findings on those factors supported by the record can sustain the custody decision.

In re E.W. · filed 2026-03-31(F)(1)

A review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing on grandmother’s motion for change of custody and the magistrate’s decision, we find the magistrate considered and analyzed the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors and provided findings for each factor, which findings were supported by the record.

A juvenile court may use the best-interest factors in subsection (F)(1) for guidance when deciding legal custody.

In re A.B. · filed 2026-05-26(F)(1)

In addition, the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) may be used by the juvenile court for guidance.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest standard for a legal-custody determination under R.C. 2151.353.

In re M.D. · filed 2026-04-17(F)(1)

“The custody determination under R.C. 2151.353 must be made in accordance with the ‘best interest of the child’ standard described in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).”

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider the children’s best interest and all relevant factors under subsection (F).

In re D.H. · filed 2026-06-11(B)(1)

When allocating parental rights and responsibilities, the juvenile court must consider the best interest of the children pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), and in doing so must consider all relevant factors under R.C. 3109.04(F).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider all listed factors when determining a child’s best interest.

Patton v. Hickling-Patton · filed 2014-06-30(F)(1)

In determining the best interest of the children, ... the court had to consider all of the factors listed in Revised Code Section 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) lists the best-interest factors a court considers when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Okoye v. Okoye · filed 2018-01-10(F)(1)

Having considered the factors listed under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), we conclude the trial court’s decision to allocate parental rights and responsibilities primarily to Ms. Okoye was ... not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

A juvenile court may use the best interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance when deciding legal custody.

In re T.H. · filed 2018-03-28(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)(e) allows a court to consider a parent’s substance abuse history and prospects for sobriety when deciding the child’s best interest.

Kuntz v. Ferrato · filed 2012-10-22(F)(1)(e)

In light of the trial court’s serious and understandable concerns about Mr. Kuntz and his potential for substance abuse, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding it was in I.F.’s best interest that Ms. Ferrato be named the sole residential parent, nor is that decision against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides nonexclusive best-interest factors for courts to consider when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Lakkapragada v. Lakkapragada · filed 2014-01-31(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(a)-(j) set forth the non-exclusive “best interest” factors ... for the trial court to consider when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(F) requires courts deciding child custody to consider all relevant best-interest factors, including the parents’ wishes, the child’s relationships, and the child’s adjustment to home, school and community.

In re M. · filed 2017-04-19(F)

R.C. 3109.04(F) requires the court to consider all relevant factors, including (1) the parents’ wishes; (2) the child’s wishes; (3) the child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, and ... any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (4) the child’s adjustment to home, school and community; (5) the mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation; (6) the parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting-time rights or visitation and companionship rights; and (7) whether either parent has failed to make child-support payments.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court deciding a child's best interest to consider all relevant factors, including the listed factors concerning family relationships, adjustment, and health.

In re J.A. · filed 2017-07-17(F)(1)

In order to determine the best interest of the child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the juvenile court to consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, any applicable factors ... provided in R.C. 3109.04(F). ... After a thorough review of the record, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion by balancing the factors as it did.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the child's best interest factors and leaves the weight assigned to each factor to the trial court.

In re L.W. · filed 2021-07-19(F)(1)

Father's argument, however, is nothing more than a challenge to the weight the juvenile court gave to each of the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... This court will not second-guess a lower court's decision in regard to the appropriate weight to be given to the best interest factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) allows a court to consider a child’s relationship with paternal grandparents when determining the child’s best interest.

Merriman v. Merriman · filed 2016-06-13(F)(1)(c)

Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider K.M.’s relationship with her paternal grandparents in its ... best-interest analysis and decision to designate Jacob as K.M.’s residential parent for school purposes.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to weigh the child's best-interest factors together; no single factor is dispositive.

B.S. v. M.M. · filed 2021-01-25(F)(1)

No one factor of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) is dispositive of the child’s best interest, and the court has discretion to weigh the factors “as it sees fit.”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best interest factors for deciding legal custody of a dependent child.

In re R.A. · filed 2020-10-09(F)(1)

The juvenile reasonably determined that, based on to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and R.C. 2151.414(D), legal custody of R.A. to Grandmother was in the child’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the child’s best-interest factors when designating a residential parent; a designation supported by substantial credible evidence is upheld on abuse-of-discretion review.

Clantz v. Clantz, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2002) · filed 2002-09-30(F)(1)

In the instant action, the magistrate considered the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), and determined it would be in Kaytlynn's best interest for wife to be designated the residential parent. ... Upon review of the record, we find there was a substantial amount of credible and competent evidence to support the trial court's designation of wife as the residential parent. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of Kaytlynn to wife.

Section 3109.04(C) requires a custody court to consider the listed best-interest factors and other relevant factors; its custody decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Pater v. Pater · filed 1990-10-24(C)

The trial court considered the factors in R.C. 3109.04(C) and other relevant factors and then awarded custody of Bobby to Robert. On the state of the record before us, we cannot say that this decision constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion in determining matters of custody.

An allocation of sole parental rights supported by substantial competent, credible evidence under the statutory best-interest factors survives abuse-of-discretion review.

Hudson v. Compton-Hudson, Unpublished Decision (2-18-1998) · filed 1998-02-18(F)(1)

Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial credible and competent evidence to support the trial court's allocation of parental rights and responsibilities to Andrea. ... Because the record supports the trial court's decision allocating sole parental rights and responsibilities to Andrea, there was no abuse of discretion.

Under § 3109.04(F)(1), no single best-interest factor controls a custody decision; an unsupported finding about a child’s adjustment under (F)(1)(d) does not require reversal when the overall award rests on substantial competent, credible evidence.

Terwilleger v. Cole-Robinson, Unpublished Decision (2-4-2000) · filed 2000-02-04(F)(1)(d)

While we acknowledge that the trial court may have acted arbitrarily in making such an inference about the children's adjustment to school and the community without any supporting evidence, we are mindful that no single factor is determinative in deciding a child's best interest. ... Thus, just because the trial court's finding on one issue appears to be against the weight of the evidence, it does not automatically follow that the entire custody award constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the best-interest factors, and an appellate court presumes they were considered absent a record showing otherwise.

Wright v. Wright, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2000) · filed 2000-11-13(F)(1)

Although wife maintains the trial court did not base its decision upon the factors in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) as set forth supra, we find nothing in this record which supports this assertion. In the absence of a record demonstration establishing the trial court did not consider the appropriate factors, we presume the trial court reviewed and considered said factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of relevant best-interest factors but does not require a specific finding on each factor; absent contrary evidence, a reviewing court presumes the trial court considered them.

Carr v. Carr, Unpublished Decision (5-15-2001) · filed 2001-05-15(F)(1)

Thus, we presume that the trial court considered the primary caretaker doctrine in its analysis in the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, as R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) does not require the court to make a specific finding regarding each of the criterion it applied in the best interest analysis.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts deciding whether to modify custody to consider all relevant best-interest factors; an appellate court presumes they did so absent an affirmative showing to the contrary.

Mollica v. Mollica, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2003) · filed 2003-07-23(F)(1)

We will presume that the trial court considered all of the relevant factors absent an affirmative demonstration to the contrary. ... The detailed findings of the magistrate do not affirmatively indicate that she failed to consider any of the relevant factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the relevant best-interest factors, but an appellate court presumes the trial court considered them when the record contains no evidence to the contrary.

Stan v. Stan, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2003) · filed 2003-10-20(F)(1)

In determining the best interest of the children, the trial court is guided by R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1). Id. ... Where there is no evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume that the trial court considered all the relevant factors. Evans v. Evans (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 673 , 677 (the record indicates trial court had before it psychological evaluations that discussed the factors that appellant claimed the court ignored). ... However, after reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did consider the applicable issues in evaluating the best interests of the children determination.

Findings applying § 3109.04’s best-interest factors can be sufficient for effective appellate review of a custody award.

Smith v. Quigg, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2006) · filed 2006-03-22(F)(1)

As stated supra, the trial court made extensive findings of fact in analyzing the factors in R.C. 3109.04 . These facts are sufficient for this court to do an effective appellate review.

Section 3109.04(F) requires a court to consider its enumerated factors when allocating parental rights, and a custody decision that does not indicate such consideration is an abuse of discretion.

Lara v. Lara, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2006) · filed 2006-06-07(F)

Furthermore, R.C. 3109.04 (F) requires that the court consider the factors enumerated therein. Because the judgment entry in this case does not indicate that the court made the best-interest-of-the-children finding and that it considered the requisite factors, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the shared parenting plan and designating Appellee as the residential parent and legal custodian.

A court deciding a child’s best interest need not separately address each statutory factor, and an appellate court presumes it considered all relevant factors absent evidence to the contrary.

Stephens v. Bertin, Unpublished Decision (12-4-2006) · filed 2006-12-04(F)(1)

We first note that there is no requirement that a trial court separately address each factor enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 . In re Henthorn , Belmont App. No. 00-BA-37, 2001-Ohio-3459. Absent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume the trial court considered all of the relevant "best interest" factors listed in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the listed best-interest factors when deciding whether to modify parental rights; a custody decision supported by some competent evidence survives abuse-of-discretion review.

Archer v. Archer, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2007) · filed 2007-03-30(F)(1)

After reviewing the record in light of the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), we find that there was some competent evidence to support the trial court's determination that the custody modification served Cody's best interests. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is not well-taken.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) does not require a trial court to list each best-interest factor if its findings show it considered the factors and provide a basis for review.

S.H. v. C.C., Ca2006-12-051 (8-27-2007) · filed 2007-08-27(F)(1)

However, the trial court stated that it considered the R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) factors and made factual findings regarding the issues covered by the best interest factors to sufficiently provide a basis for review.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the trial court to review its listed factors when deciding a child’s best interests in allocating parental rights.

Kelly v. Kelly · filed 2014-02-03(F)(1)

In determining what is in the best interest of the children when allocating parental rights, the trial court must review the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of relevant best interest factors but does not require a trial court to address each listed factor separately; absent contrary evidence, an appellate court presumes the factors were considered.

In re S.A. · filed 2019-10-10(F)(1)

However, there is no requirement that a trial court separately address each factor enumerated in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and absent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume the trial court considered all of the relevant “best interest” factors.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies best-interest factors for reviewing a legal custody award; evidence of a stable caregiver and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation supported the award here.

N.A. v. J.P. · filed 2019-10-25(F)(1)

However, in the interest of justice, upon review, we have found no reversible error under the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors. Among other things, we are persuaded from the record that Samantha W. clearly has been the one consistently stable adult figure in L.A.’s life, resulting in significant growth and development in various areas in the child’s life, and we note the guardian ad litem has recommended legal custody to Samantha accordingly.

In an initial custody allocation, a court need not separately address every best-interest factor; absent contrary evidence, appellate review presumes it considered the relevant factors.

Head v. Head · filed 2024-01-26(F)(1)

Concerning initial custody allocation under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), while the factors are “ ‘helpful to a reviewing court, there is no requirement that a trial court expressly and separately address each best-interest factor. * * * Absent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court presumes that the trial court considered the relevant statutory factors.’ ” Sivertsen-Kuhn v. Kuhn, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2019-CA-17, 2019-Ohio-3525, ¶ 17, quoting Wise v. Wise, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23424, 2010-Ohio-1116, ¶ 5. Here, the trial court specifically stated that it had considered the statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04. Decision at p. 15. There is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, the court’s discussion was very thorough. Id. at 9-17.

In determining a child’s best interest for allocation of parental rights, the court should strongly consider which parent was the primary caregiver along with the statutory factors.

Williams-Booker v. Booker, 21752 (9-14-2007) · filed 2007-09-14(F)(1)

When determining the best interest of the child or children in allocating parental rights and responsibilities, in addition to the specific statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), the court should give strong consideration to whether one of the parents was the primary caregiver for the child or children.

Section 3109.04(F)(3) does not bar consideration of a parent’s housing and employment circumstances when that consideration is not a preference based solely on the parents’ relative finances.

Seitz v. Seitz, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2007) · filed 2007-01-05(F)(3)

Upon review, we do not find the trial court's consideration of the above tantamount to a preference of one party over another based solely upon their relative financial situation.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) requires consideration of a child’s relationship with a sibling, but does not require an in-depth written analysis of that relationship.

Barber v. Barber, Unpublished Decision (9-22-2006) · filed 2006-09-22(F)(1)(c)

An in-depth written analysis of the relationship between a four-year-old and his ten-month-old half-sister whom he generally visits four days a month was not required.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) includes a parent’s status as primary caretaker in the parent-child relationship factor that a court must consider when allocating parental rights.

Broadbent v. Broadbent, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2005) · filed 2005-06-27(F)(1)(c)

The status of a parent as the primary caretaker is included in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(c), which requires the trial court to consider the relationship between the parent and the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court assessing a child’s best interests to consider relevant economic conditions when deciding whether to modify a shared parenting plan.

Valentyne v. Ceccacci, Unpublished Decision (8-12-2004) · filed 2004-08-12(F)(1)

Economic conditions must be considered where, as here, they are relevant.

Section 3109.04 permits a court to approve a shared-parenting plan when it is in the child’s best interest.

Deutsch v. Warm, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2004) · filed 2004-09-29(D)(1)(a)(i)

R.C. 3109.04 , which governs the allocation of shared parenting, provides that a court may approve a shared-parenting plan if it is in the best interest of the child. ... We hold that the trial court's allocation of overnight parenting time was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in this case.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights to consider the listed best-interest factors and permits consideration of additional factors.

Jackson v. Copeland-Jackson, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2004) · filed 2004-10-12(F)(1)

In order to determine the child's best interest, the court is required to consider the factors outlined in R.C. 3109.04 (F), but may consider additional factors as well.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts to consider the relevant best-interest factors as a whole rather than treat them as an all-or-nothing ten-part test.

Puls v. Puls, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2005) · filed 2005-03-25(F)(1)

The R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) factors must be considered as a whole rather than an all-or-nothing ten-part test, as Robert would have us find.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) lists factors for determining a child’s best interests in a custody decision, but the factors are not exhaustive.

Brooks-Lee v. Lee, Unpublished Decision (5-10-2005) · filed 2005-05-10(F)(1)

When determining which parent should have custody of minor children in a divorce proceeding, a trial court is required to consider the best interests of the children. Rowe, at 178-179, citing R.C. 3109.04 (F). R.C. 3109.04 (F) 1 lists the relevant factors in determining the best interests of the child, but these statutory factors are not all-inclusive.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the statutory best-interest factors when awarding custody, and an award supported by competent, credible evidence may be affirmed.

In Re Jump, Unpublished Decision (6-15-2005) · filed 2005-06-15(F)(1)

The trial court properly considered each of the statutory factors set forth above, and specifically noted the following: Appellee-father was the primary caretaker of the minor child when he lived with him. ... Upon review, competent, credible evidence exists to support the trial court's award of custody to appellee, and the court did not abuse its discretion in rendering its judgment.

Under § 3109.04(F)(1), a custody modification serves the child’s best interests when some competent evidence supports that determination in light of the listed factors.

Valentine v. Valentine, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2005) · filed 2005-11-21(F)(1)

After reviewing the record in light of the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), we find that there was some competent evidence to support the trial court's determination that the custody modification served the best interests of the children.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires courts to consider the child’s best interests when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

In Re Depaul v. Phillips, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2005) · filed 2005-12-15(B)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) requires that courts take the child's best interests into account when making this determination. ... In this case, there was ample evidence supporting the juvenile court's decision to name DePaul the residential parent and allow Phillips only supervised visitation.

Section 3109.04(F) does not give a parent presumptive preference for having been the child's primary caretaker; that role is one factor in the best-interest determination.

Gehring v. Gehring, Unpublished Decision (1-12-2004) · filed 2004-01-12(F)

A parent's role as the primary caretaker is not the only relevant factor to be considered when making the best interest determination. ... We have stated that "R.C. 3109.04 (F) precludes placing a presumptive quality on this factor."

Section 3109.04(F)(1) allows a court to consider which parent was the primary caregiver, but does not require that factor to outweigh other best-interest factors or dictate the custody award.

Wooten v. Casey, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2004) · filed 2004-01-05(F)(1)

Nothing in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) required the court to award custody to appellant simply because she had been Taylor's primary caregiver. Rather, R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) provides the court with discretion to weigh the relevant factors and determine how those factors apply to the child's best interests.

Section 3109.04(F)(3) prohibits giving a parent preference in allocating parental rights based on financial status or condition.

Silverman v. Silverman, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2003) · filed 2003-06-27(F)(3)

R.C. 3109.04 (F)(3) prohibits a court from giving preference to a parent based on that parent's financial status or condition. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the court considered the parents' financial status in deciding to modify the shared parenting plan and name Mr. Silverman residential parent. While the court's entry does address the parties' economic status, it does so for purposes of child support.

Section 3109.04(C) permits a custody court to consider religiously motivated parental conduct in assessing a child’s best interests without proof of actual harm to the child.

Birch v. Birch · filed 1984-06-06(C)

In recognition of society’s legitimate interest in the welfare of its minor children, the law does not require that a child be actually harmed or that a parent’s unsuitability to have custody of her children be disregarded because the parent claims that the bases of her unsuitability are religious practices.

Section 3109.04(C) requires strong consideration of which parent was the primary caretaker in deciding the child’s best interests, but does not give that factor presumptive weight.

In Re Maxwell · filed 1982-10-08(C)

R.C. 3109.04(C) would preclude our placing a presumptive quality on the factor of who is the primary caretaker. However, it is a factor which must be given strong consideration as it bears on the child’s interaction and interrelationship with his parents, as well as the child’s adjustment to his home.

Section 3109.04(C)(3) includes consideration of which parent was the primary caregiver within the child’s interaction and interrelationship with the parents when determining the child’s best interest.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 1987-02-24(C)(3)

We hold that the primary caregiver doctrine is part of the best interest of the child and is included in the language of R.C. 3109.04(C)(3), “[t]he child’s interaction and interrelationship with his parents * * *.”

Section 3109.04 requires custody decisions to give paramount consideration to the child's best interests and due consideration to which parent was the primary caregiver.

Bechtol v. Bechtol · filed 1990-02-14(C)

Under R.C. 3109.04, the domestic relations court decides to whom the care, custody and control of a minor child shall be awarded, giving paramount consideration to the best interests of the child. ... The court of appeals properly noted that in Ohio a trial court in forming a custody order should give due consideration to which parent performed the role as primary caregiver.

Section 3109.04(C) permits consideration of a child's tender years when assessing best interests, without giving either parent an initial custody preference.

Berry v. Berry · filed 1990-03-12(C)

Accordingly, neither parent is to enjoy a custodial preference at the outset of a custody proceeding. However, it would be absurd to hold, as a matter of law, that a child's tender years is never relevant in a custody dispute, especially if the case involves a baby nursing at the mother's breast.

Section 3109.04(C) permits a court to consider a parent’s religious convictions when they affect the child’s best interests, so long as religion is not the sole deciding factor.

Klamo v. Klamo · filed 1988-11-21(C)

In determining which parent will receive custody after a divorce, the domestic relations court must consider what is in the best interests of the child. R.C. 3109.04(A). In making that determination, the court is bound by the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(C). ... The state, through its courts, has the power to consider the parents’ religious convictions in awarding custody as those convictions relate to the determination of what is in the best interests of the child. ... As long as religion is not the sole deciding factor, a court does not abuse its discretion by considering religious matters.

A parent’s role as primary caretaker may be considered with the custody factors in § 3109.04(C), although Ohio does not apply a primary caretaker doctrine.

Roth v. Roth · filed 1989-12-29(C)

With regard to the latter argument, the primary caretaker doctrine has not been adopted in Ohio. ... However, this fact can be taken into consideration when reviewing the other factors listed at R.C. 3109.04(C).

Section 3109.04(C) requires consideration of a child's primary caretaker when evaluating the child's relationships with parents, even though that factor is not expressly listed.

Glover v. Glover · filed 1990-06-11(C)

Although not specifically listed in R.C. 3109.04(C), the role of the child's primary caretaker is a factor warranting consideration in evaluating the child's interactions and interrelationships with parents.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) makes the child’s best interests the sole test for an initial custody award, including consideration of the direct adverse impact of a parent’s conduct on the child.

Rowe v. Franklin · filed 1995-06-28(B)(1)

The inquiry in an initial custody award is solely the best interests of the child. In light of legislative policy favoring continuity of the relationship for post-decree modification, we see no reason why consideration of the direct adverse impact of a parent’s conduct or standards on the child should not also apply to initial custody determinations in this case.