Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

A court may consider a parent’s nonresidence when determining the child’s best interests, but nonresidence alone should not deprive the parent of custody.

Marshall v. Marshall · filed 1997-01-15(F)(1)(j)

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

Section 3109.04 permits consideration of a parent’s sexual orientation in allocating parental rights only if it directly adversely affects the child.

Inscoe v. Inscoe · filed 1997-06-16(E)(1)(a)

A trial court determining the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities may consider a parent’s sexual orientation only if the sexual orientation has “a direct adverse impact” on the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) permits a court to consider a child’s relationship with grandparents who help care for the child as a factor in determining the child’s best interest in a custody award.

Davis v. Davis · filed 1997-09-22(F)(1)(c)

The fact that appellee is currently living with her parents and that appellee’s parents have demonstrated a strong commitment toward Ashley by helping appellee care for her is certainly relevant to whether an award of custody to appellee is in Ashley’s best interest under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts allocating parental rights to consider the child’s family relationships and adjustment to the home when determining the child’s best interests.

Badovick v. Badovick · filed 1998-05-26(F)(1)(c), (d)

R.C. 3109.04(F) sets forth the factors the court must consider in determining the child’s best interests when allocating parental rights and responsibilities. The court found that wife had been the primary caregiver of the child and cited the opinions of the social worker, psychologist, and trainee that wife should continue to be primary caregiver. These opinions fall within the parameters of both R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c) and (d), the child’s interaction and interrelationship with her family, and her adjustment to her home, and were supported by competent evidence.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(e) allows consideration of a parent’s conduct during divorce when assessing mental health in a child’s best-interest determination.

Medley v. Medley, Unpublished Decision (8-31-1998) · filed 1998-08-31(F)(1)(e)

Under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(e), the trial court properly considered appellee's mental health regarding his actions since appellant filed the complaint for divorce.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(g) requires a custody court to consider a parent’s child support payment history, including arrearages, even while a contempt finding for nonpayment is on appeal.

Slone v. Slone, Unpublished Decision (3-22-1999) · filed 1999-03-22(F)(1)(g)

R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(g) requires the trial court to 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 which that parent is an obligor." Upon appellant's objection, the trial court agreed to not consider the finding of contempt that had been appealed, but did allow testimony about the history of appellant's payment of child support. The trial court did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably by allowing presentation of evidence that it is required by law to consider. Appellant's appeal of the trial court's judgment finding him in contempt for non-payment of child support did not affect whether appellant had actually failed to pay child support. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence pertaining to appellant's child support arrearage and we overrule his tenth assignment of error.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court to consider continuity in the children’s living arrangements when deciding which parent to designate as the primary residential parent.

Chavez v. Sanderson-Chavez, Unpublished Decision (3-31-1999) · filed 1999-03-31(F)(1)

We do not believe that it was somehow improper for the magistrate to observe that the children's lives would maintain a certain continuity if appellee were named as the primary residential parent.

Section 3109.04 permits consideration of a parent’s moral conduct in determining a child’s best interests only when that conduct directly and adversely affects the child’s development.

Holbrook v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (9-7-1999) · filed 1999-09-07(F)

As this court has previously held, a parent's moral conduct is not relevant Under R.C. 3109.04 unless it has a direct, adverse impact on the child's physical, emotional, mental or moral development.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires courts to consider the children’s best interests when allocating parental rights, including residential parent status for school purposes.

Wilson v. Wilson, Unpublished Decision (9-20-1999) · filed 1999-09-20(B)(1)

The trial court must consider the best interest of the children when making an allocation of parental rights. R.C. 3109.04 (B) (1).

Absent shared parenting, § 3109.04(A)(1) gives the residential parent and legal custodian the right to choose the child’s school, so the court cannot assign school placement to the other parent.

Smith v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (12-28-1999) · filed 1999-12-28(A)(1)

Because the law recognizes school placement as a custodial right, it cannot be divided. ... Despite the amendments to R.C. 3109.04 , 3109.04(A)(1) continues to require that, absent a shared parenting plan, the trial court allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child primarily to one parent, who is to be designated the residential parent or legal custodian.

In assessing which parent is more likely to honor visitation rights under § 3109.04(F)(1)(f), evidence that a parent failed to foster the child’s bond with the other parent during divorce proceedings is more relevant than violations of court orders unrelated to visitation.

Staten v. Staten, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2000) · filed 2000-05-12(F)(1)(f)

More importantly, the issue here is the best interest of Marky and a consideration of which parent will promote a continued bond with the nonresidential parent by honoring his or her right to visitation and companionship with this child. Thus, while a failure to follow court orders on issues other than visitation might have some probative value in this determination, evidence of a failure to foster the bond between parent and child during the pendency of a divorce is of far greater relevance.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts to weigh all relevant best-interest factors and gives a parent’s role as primary caregiver no presumptive weight.

Wesselhoeft v. Wesselhoeft, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2000) · filed 2000-06-30(F)(1)

Moreover, the statutory factors of R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) preclude any sort of "presumptive quality" from being given to the primary caregiver doctrine.

Section 3109.04(C)(3) includes a parent’s primary caregiver role in the child’s best interests, but awarding custody to the other parent alone does not show that the court failed to consider that role.

Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, Unpublished Decision (12-04-2000) · filed 2000-12-04(C)(3)

Ohio has never formally adopted the primary caregiver doctrine. However, the doctrine is inherently a part of the best interest of the child and is included in the language of R.C. 3109.04 (C)(3), i.e., "the child's interaction and interrelationship with his parents." See, Thompson v. Thompson (1987), 31 Ohio App.3d 254 , 256 . We find the fact the trial court did not award wife custody of Paul does not establish the trial court disregarded or failed to consider the primary caregiver doctrine. Without an affirmative record demonstration to the contrary, we presume the trial court considered wife's role in the upbringing of the child in determining the appropriate shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(C)(4) requires a best-interest finding before a parent convicted of domestic violence receives custody, and the court may satisfy that requirement through factual findings and consideration of the statutory best-interest factors.

Moneypenny v. Moneypenny, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2001) · filed 2001-01-17(C)(4)

In the present case, the trial court stated that it had considered the factors employed when determining the best interest of the children, namely R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1). It also analyzed the evidence presented, including testimony from both parties, the guardian ad litem , a social worker, and other witnesses, which contained sufficient, competent evidence to find that the custody awards were in the best interest of the children. See Sayre , 100 Ohio App.3d at 212 . Indeed, the trial court made seventy different findings of fact, and Appellant never invoked Civ.R. 52. This Court may therefore conclude that the trial court followed the dictates of R.C. 3109.04 (C)(4) in granting Appellee custody of the younger three of the parties' children and the custody of the eldest child to Appellant.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) requires consideration of a child’s relationship with siblings in domestic custody proceedings; it does not govern dependency dispositions under Chapter 2151.

In Re Blevins, Unpublished Decision (3-20-2001) · filed 2001-03-20(F)(1)(c)

As noted by our colleagues in Kasten , supra , allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in a domestic proceeding requires a court to consider a child's interaction and relationship with siblings when making custody awards. See R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(c). No such provision is included in R.C. Chapter 2151.

Section 3109.04(F) makes a parent’s role as primary caretaker one factor in the best interest determination, without a presumption in that parent’s favor.

Marsh v. Marsh, Unpublished Decision (7-30-2001) · filed 2001-07-30(F)

While a parent's role as primary caretaker is a factor to be considered when making the best interest determination, it is only one of the relevant factors to be considered in a child custody case. Seibert v. Seibert (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 342 , 345 . R.C. 3109.04 (F) precludes placing a presumptive quality on this factor. Clontz v. Clontz (Mar. 9, 1992), Butler App. No. CA91-02-027, unreported, at 8.

Section 3109.04(F)(3) prohibits preferring a parent because of financial status or condition, but considering a parent’s support history in assessing conduct does not itself establish such a preference.

In Re Malcuit, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2001) · filed 2001-11-30(F)(3)

While appellant is correct that R.C. § 3109.04 (F)(3) prohibits a preference based upon financial status or condition, the record and Entry of Judgment fails to indicate that such occurred. The trial court reviewed the history as to support of such child but did not indicate a preference in this regard, only considering such in light of the efforts of appellant and her patterns of behavior.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the listed best-interest factors, but a parent’s domestic violence conviction does not necessarily preclude designating that parent as residential parent.

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

After an independent review of the record and considering the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), we conclude that the trial court neither abused its discretion nor acted against the manifest weight of the evidence in finding that it was in Erin and Laura's best interests for Ms. Smith to be designated residential parent, even though Ms. Smith had pled no contest and was convicted of domestic violence.

In deciding a child’s best interests under § 3109.04(F)(1) after terminating shared parenting, a court must give due consideration to which parent was the child’s primary caregiver.

Kelly v. Kelly, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2002) · filed 2002-03-08(F)(1)

In 1982, this court held that in determining the best interests of a child in an original award of custody, the trial court, in addition to those factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 , should strongly consider which parent was the primary caretaker of the child. ... Although the magistrate noted he had considered that Kelly had been Alex's primary care provider since his birth, the trial court made no mention of this important consideration. ... Accordingly, the appellant's assignment of error is Sustained in part, and this matter will be remanded to the trial court to make its decision about the award of custody after giving due consideration to the primary care giver factor.

In a reallocation of parental rights under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), the primary caregiver’s role is not a required best-interest factor.

Chelman v. Chelman, 2007 Ca 79 (9-12-2008) · filed 2008-09-12(E)(1)(a)

However, as the Twelfth District noted in discussing the applicability of the Kelly decision to a motion for reallocation of parental rights, the role of primary caregiver is a factor to be considered in determining the best interest of the child in the initial award of custody, not in the reallocation of parental rights pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). Terry L. v. Eva E. (March 5, 2007), Madison App. No. CA2006-05-019. 2007-Ohio-916 . Accordingly, the trial court was not required to take this factor into consideration in determining the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(f) permits a court to find that one parent is more likely to honor parenting time even when the other parent did not violate a parenting time order.

Hewitt v. Hewitt · filed 2009-12-14(F)(1)(f)

However, even though the trial court erred in finding that the Hewitts failed to abide by the magistrate’s ordered parenting time, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Mindy was more likely to honor court-approved parenting time and visitation pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(a) considers each parent’s wishes about the child’s care; which parent takes the child to medical appointments is irrelevant to that factor.

Geier v. Swank · filed 2010-02-23(F)(1)(a)

Monica says the court ignored that she takes Nicholas to his medical appointments. Although the evidence also indicates that Chris shares responsibility for Nicholas’s medical care, this issue is irrelevant under the plain meaning of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a).

In deciding a child’s best interests, a court may favor the parent more likely to honor the parenting schedule when the other parent has repeatedly disregarded court orders governing parenting time.

King v. King · filed 2012-11-13(F)(1)(f)

Mr. King argues that, because both parties complained about the other failing to comply with court-ordered companionship time, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f) did not favor either parent. However, the trial court found that Mr. King, throughout the proceedings, sought to limit Ms. Craig’s companionship time and repeatedly attempted to unilaterally alter court orders regarding the timing and duration of the parties’ parenting time. Given Mr. King’s repeated and blatant disregard for court orders, the trial court’s determination that Ms. Craig would be more likely to comply with the companionship schedule is supported by the evidence in the record and was not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(i) makes a residential parent’s denial of the other parent’s parenting time relevant to custody, even when a contempt motion is denied.

Dappert v. Dappert · filed 2017-05-08(F)(1)(i)

It makes perfect sense that because the matter of contempt occurred approximately 16 months prior to the issuance of the magistrate’s decision, the contempt of Bobbie was relevant to custody (under R.C. 3109.04) and not as to the aspect of punishment. Therefore, the magistrate did determine Bobbie’s behavior as a custody factor, under R.C. 3109.04, in favor of Ashley.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(i) permits a court to find continuous and willful denial of parenting time when a parent repeatedly interferes with visits, including court-ordered visits, and relocates the children to cut off visitation.

In re G.R.F. · filed 2019-08-19(F)(1)(i)

Since Father moved for custody of the children, the record indicates Mother has consistently interfered with Father's exercise of parenting time, including arbitrarily withholding visits, cancelling his court-ordered visits beginning in September, and ultimately moving the children to Arizona in November. As such, we find the record supports the juvenile court's finding that Mother willfully and continuously denied Father's right to parenting time as described in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(i).

Courts must consider the statutory best-interest factors, including abuse or neglect, but an express finding on that factor is unnecessary when the record supports the judgment and no findings were requested.

Mosser v. Mosser · filed 2020-10-26(F)(1)(h)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) contains a list of ten factors courts must consider when determining the best interest of a child. ... Thus, although the trial court did not make an express finding regarding the presence of abuse or neglect, we presume the trial court properly considered that factor in determining the best interest of H.M.

Parents’ wishes are a best interest factor under § 3109.04(F)(1)(a) that may be considered in a legal custody appeal but not an appeal from a permanent custody judgment.

In re H.P. · filed 2023-10-11(F)(1)(a)

For example, one of Mother’s primary arguments is that the trial court erred by failing to honor the parents’ wishes, a best interest factor set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a), which this Court may consider when reviewing an appeal from a legal custody judgment, but not an appeal from a permanent custody judgment.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(a) makes the parents’ wishes one best-interest factor in a legal-custody decision, but that factor does not control the outcome.

In re B.B.J. · filed 2025-01-21(F)(1)(a)

As detailed above, the parents’ wishes were one of many factors to be considered by the trial court. The best interest factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) and 3109.04(F) are intended to be weighed by the trial court, as no one factor is controlling.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(h) calls for consideration of convictions or guilty pleas, so treating criminal charges as convictions is error, though it may be harmless when the other best-interest factors support the custody decision.

Tanner v. Carmichael · filed 2025-09-29(F)(1)(h)

Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion and erred because under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(h), the trial court was required to consider whether any parent “has been convicted of or pleaded guilty” but Mother had no convictions or guilty pleas, only indictments/charges, whereas Williams had convictions. We agree that the court erred in apparently conflating Mother’s charges with actual convictions. However, considering the substantial competent, credible evidence regarding the other factors that were unfavorable to Mother and favorable to Williams, this finding is harmless error.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider the children’s best interests.

Ryan v. Ryan, 2007ap030024 (12-4-2007) · filed 2007-12-04(B)(1)

In allocating parental rights and responsibilities, the trial court "shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of the children." R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1). ... In considering all of the evidence, we find the trial court did not err in allocating appellee as the residential/custodial parent.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider all relevant factors bearing on the children's best interests, including the statutory factors.

Tuttle v. Tuttle, Ca2006-07-176 (12-17-2007) · filed 2007-12-17(F)(1)

Therefore, the trial court must consider all relevant factors related to the children's best interests, including the factors specified by R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(f) makes a parent's willingness to facilitate parenting time a relevant custody factor, but that factor alone does not determine which parent receives residential custody.

Gamble v. Gamble, Ca2006-10-265 (3-10-2008) · filed 2008-03-10(F)(1)(f)

One factor for consideration is "[t]he parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights[.]" R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(f). ... Gary's willingness to facilitate equal visitation, while commendable, is not dispositive of the matter.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires the court to consider the child's best interest when allocating or modifying parental rights, and an agreement that restricts that duty is unenforceable.

Jean-Paul L. v. Michelle M., Unpublished Decision (3-9-2007) · filed 2007-03-09(B)(1)

In any proceeding pertaining to the allocation of parental rights or the modification thereof, the court is mandated to, "* * * take into account that which would be in the best interest of the children." R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1). ... We concur with this reasoning, but go farther, concluding that any contractual arrangement which would restrain or otherwise inhibit the court's nondelegable duty to determine that which is in a child's best interest is antithetical to public policy and is resultantly unenforceable.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest factors may inform a legal-custody decision after a dependency adjudication, but the juvenile court need not expressly consider and balance them before awarding custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3).

In Re J.O., Unpublished Decision (2-1-2007) · filed 2007-02-01(F)(1)

However, the standard for awarding legal custody to a parent or nonparent, as in the case at hand, is not as stringent because the disposition is not as extreme. "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). 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)."

In deciding a child’s best interests under § 3109.04(F)(1)(c) and (d), the court may need home evaluations to assess the child’s relationships and adjustment to each proposed home.

In Re D.W., Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007) · filed 2007-02-02(F)(1)(c) and (d)

First we note that, while the guardian ad litem spoke to Van Buren and Woodmore, no one visited either of their homes or observed the children's interactions and interrelationships within either household, or the children's adjustments to their homes. R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(c) and (d). The children have lost both their parents, and considering the children's best interests and long term welfare, home evaluations should have been done and a report generated to the trial court before an informed decision could be made regarding their custody.

In deciding a child’s best interest for custody, a court may consider the child’s interaction and relationships with parents, siblings, and others.

In Matter of Ratliff, 2006-G-2728 (4-16-2007) · filed 2007-04-16(F)(1)(c)

Among the applicable statutory factors the court considered in determining the children's best interest was "[t]he child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's parents, siblings, and any other person." R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(c).

Section 3109.04(F) requires consideration of all relevant factors when determining a child’s best interests, and its best-interest logic applies to visitation decisions.

Holder v. Holder · filed 2007-05-11(F)

While this appeal involves Celeste’s visitation rights and not custody, our analysis begins with the child-custody statute, R.C. 3109.04(F), which provides that the best interests of the child must be determined after a consideration of all relevant factors, including “(c) [t]he child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) [t]he child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community; [and] (e) [t]he mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation.” Clearly, identical logic applies to any allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in terms of visitation.

Section 3109.04(B) calls for consideration of its factors when deciding which residential-parent designation serves the children's best interests.

Silver v. Silver, 2006 Ca 47 (5-25-2007) · filed 2007-05-25(B)

Considering all of the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (B) and discussed in the magistrate's decision, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the children's best interests were served by designating Mrs. Silver as the residential parent.

In deciding whether a custody change serves a child’s best interest, the court may consider continuity of school and home and which parent is more likely to support a reliable relationship with both parents.

Marshall v. Marshall, 06ca9 (6-14-2007) · filed 2007-06-14(F)(1)

Having found a change in circumstances, there is also substantial, credible evidence that the change in custody is in the best interest of Angela, as it will allow her to remain in her current school system, continue to reside primarily in the familiarity of her father's home (the former marital residence), and best assure reliable and regular visitation with her mother, since the trial court concluded, based upon its observation of the parties' demeanor and testimony, that appellee was more likely to facilitate a stable and reliable relationship with both parents.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a custody decision to turn on the child’s family relationships, which parent is more likely to facilitate visitation, and a parent’s move out of Ohio, even when most other best-interest factors favor the parents equally.

Werts v. Werts, Unpublished Decision (8-22-2007) · filed 2007-08-22(F)(1)(c), (f), (j)

As it appears that most of the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) equally favor both parties, the trial court's finding that the fact that K.W.'s primary interactions and interrelationship with Appellee's family were located in Summit County, the fact that Appellee would be more likely to facilitate visitation, and the fact that Appellant, through subterfuge, established a residence outside Ohio, tipped the balance in favor of Appellee, is not an abuse of discretion. These facts go to R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(c), (f), and (j).

A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding custody when it carefully evaluates the best-interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1).

Walton v. Walton, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2007) · filed 2007-08-24(F)(1)

In light of the trial court's careful evaluation of the R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) factors, we find there was no abuse of discretion in awarding custody of the children to Philip.

In allocating parental rights, a court must consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest, including the factors listed in § 3109.04(F)(1).

Rothenbusch v. Rothenbusch, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2006) · filed 2006-09-05(F)(1)

The trial court must consider all relevant factors related to the child's best interest including the factors specified by R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1). ... We find that the court acted well within its discretion by considering these issues and then making custody and visitation determinations consistent with the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides the best-interest factors for a custody modification; a trial court that considers those factors and exercises its discretion may be affirmed on appeal.

In Re Gentile, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2006) · filed 2006-10-23(F)(1)

Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court considered the statutory factors and exercised its discretion to resolve this difficult situation.

In a dependent-child custody disposition, section 3109.04(F) calls for consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including applicable best-interest factors.

In Matter of Memic, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2006) · filed 2006-12-01(F)

Under this standard, there is no definitive test or set of criteria for the court to apply, rather, a court "should consider the totality of the circumstances, including, to the extent they are applicable, the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)."

Section 3109.04(F)(1) lists nonexhaustive best-interest factors, and a court may consider other relevant circumstances when designating a residential parent for school purposes.

Wachter v. Wachter, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2006) · filed 2006-12-29(F)(1)

This fact goes to R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(c) and (d). Further, the enumerated factors under this section are not an exhaustive list and it was in the trial court's discretion to look beyond those factors listed.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) allows the best-interest determination to rest on supported findings about a parent’s willingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent and the credibility of competing accounts.

Ward v. Ward, Unpublished Decision (2-21-2006) · filed 2006-02-21(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 governs court awarding parental rights and responsibilities. Subsection (B) states in making an allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall take into account the best interest of the child. Subsection (F)(1) sets forth the following factors the trial court should consider in making its determination: ... We find the trial court's determination of these issues to be supported by the evidence. It is these determinations that go to the heart of the best interest decision.

Section 3109.04 requires the record to indicate what evidence the court received on the children's best interests and the judgment entry to indicate that the court considered those interests when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Phillips v. Phillips, Unpublished Decision (4-24-2006) · filed 2006-04-24(F)

Next, this court will address appellant's contention that the trial court failed to apply the statutory factors and requirements concerning allocation of parental rights and responsibilities pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 . ... We find that there should be some indication in the Reconciliation of Statement of the Evidence as to what evidence the court received on the children's best interest and an indication in the judgment entry that the trial court considered the children's best interest when it allocated parental rights and responsibilities.

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

Erwin v. Erwin, Unpublished Decision (5-30-2006) · filed 2006-05-30(F)(1)

In order to determine a 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. R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) directs courts to consider the child’s best interests through its listed factors, and a custody decision applying those factors may stand when supported by competent, credible evidence.

Terry J. v. Tyrone F., Unpublished Decision (6-16-2006) · filed 2006-06-16(F)(1)

After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was competent, credible evidence under the R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) factors to support the trial court's findings and legal conclusions.

Section 3109.04 does not entitle parents to a custody judgment based on their agreement without the court determining that the agreement is in the child's best interest.

State Ex Rel. Cummings v. Squire, Unpublished Decision (6-2-2005) · filed 2005-06-02(A)(1)

To begin, R.C. 3109.04 does not create for relator a clear legal right that the domestic relations court entered judgment based upon the agreement of the parties in the absence of the court's own determination that the agreement is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(B)(1)'s best-interest mandate permits a parent to present evidence of another parent's alleged immoral conduct at the final custody hearing without raising it earlier.

Lanfranc v. Lanfranc, Unpublished Decision (9-8-2005) · filed 2005-09-08(B)(1)

Further, this court is not aware of any requirement that a party raise the issue of a party's alleged immoral conduct and its potential impact on children prior to the final hearing in order to preserve the right to present such evidence at the hearing. Upon consideration, we find that to make such a requirement would be contrary to the trial court's mandate to determine custody issues in terms of the children's best interests. See R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the statutory best-interest factors when designating a residential parent and legal custodian.

In Re Vodila, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2005) · filed 2005-02-07(F)(1)

We find the magistrate sufficiently considered the best interest of Asheton as set forth in the statutory factors in its designation of mother as the residential parent and legal custodian.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) applies the child’s best-interest standard to initial custody decisions and gives the trial court broad discretion in evaluating the statutory factors.

Steven D.C. v. Anne P., Unpublished Decision (7-29-2005) · filed 2005-07-29(F)(1)

Thus, the best interest of the child standard applies to initial determinations of custody as between parents and the trial court has broad discretion in evaluating the factors set forth above.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a best interests determination for an initial allocation of parental rights, including when the parents were never married.

Francis v. Westfall, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2004) · filed 2004-08-24(B)(1)

According to R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1), the court must determine the children's best interests for the purposes of ordering an original allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. The best interest standard applies in initial actions to allocate parental rights in cases involving children of unmarried parents as well as in the context of divorce, dissolution, or annulment.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts allocating parental rights to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest; overlooking significant concerns can make a residential-parent designation an abuse of discretion.

Sickle v. Sickle, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2003) · filed 2003-10-29(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) provides a nonexclusive list of considerations in determining the best interest of a child: ... In reaching its decision, the trial court failed to address some of the main concerns expressed by the magistrate. The trial court made no mention of Zimmerman's past drug activity, the credibility of either Mother or Zimmerman, or the fact that the child has contact with Mother's stepbrother. A review of the record shows that these are legitimate concerns. Consequently, this Court finds that the trial court abused its discretion in designating Mother the sole residential parent.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires courts allocating parental rights and responsibilities to be guided by the child’s best interest.

White v. White, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2003) · filed 2003-11-18(B)(1)

Second, as in any decision concerning the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, the court must be guided by child's "best interest." R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts to consider the relevant best-interest factors when deciding child custody.

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

There is no evidence that the magistrate or trial court abused their discretion by failing to consider the factors under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interests, including the factors listed in the statute.

Ruark v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2003) · filed 2003-12-16(F)(1)

In addition, the trial court shall consider all relevant factors, including those set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

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

McComb-houghton v. Houghton, Unpublished Decision (12-24-2003) · filed 2003-12-24(B)(1)

When allocating parental rights and responsibilities, R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) requires the trial court to consider the child's best interests.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts to weigh the child’s best-interest factors when designating a sole residential parent and legal custodian.

Dannaher v. Newbold, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2004) · filed 2004-03-04(F)(1)

The court did not erroneously conclude that the R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) factors weighed in favor of designating appellee Olivia's sole residential parent and legal custodian.

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, including the listed factors.

Krayterman v. Krayterman, Unpublished Decision (5-24-2004) · filed 2004-05-24(F)(1)

The trial court must consider all relevant factors related to the children's best interest, including the factors specified by R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court to reject shared parenting when the totality of the circumstances shows that it is not in the child’s best interest.

Klausman v. Klausman, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2004) · filed 2004-06-30(F)(1)

However, in viewing the totality of the circumstances, we find that the trial court's conclusion, that shared parenting was not in the best interest of A.K., was proper. See R.C. 3109.04 (F).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) supplies the best interest test when a parent has given permanent custody to a nonparent, but that test does not apply when the parent retains a paramount right to custody after a temporary guardianship.

In the Matter of Smith, Unpublished Decision (8-11-2003) · filed 2003-08-11(E)(1)(a)

The proper legal analysis in this case turns on whether the guardianship was temporary or permanent. Where parents have surrendered only temporary custody of their children to third parties, the parents retain a paramount right to the custody of the child. However, when parents have given permanent custody of their children to nonparents, the Supreme Court has held that the best interest test of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) applies in determining the child's custody. ... Because appellant did not forfeit her paramount right to custody, the trial court did not err by failing to apply the "best interests" test.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) directs the court to consider the children’s best interests when assessing evidence about parental rights and visitation.

In the Matter of Lane, Unpublished Decision (6-25-2003) · filed 2003-06-25(B)(1)

Here, the trial court was concerned with the best interest of the children, not the criminal standard of innocent until proven guilty. See R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1).

Section 3109.04(B) applies the best-interest-of-the-child standard when a parent who has relinquished custody seeks to change custody.

Miller v. Miller · filed 1993-03-04(B)

Parents who have relinquished custody through contract or by abandonment, or who are totally unable to care for their children may be found to have forfeited their paramount right to custody. Thereafter, they must meet the standards of R.C. 3109.04(B), the “best interest of the child” test, when attempting to change custody.

Section 3109.04 makes the child’s best interest the governing standard when a court decides whether to modify custody.

Miller v. Miller · filed 1988-06-01(B)(1), (C)

Second, a review of the pertinent language contained in R.C. 3109.04, which governs the instant action requesting a change of custody, reveals that the “best interest of the child” standard continues to be the law of Ohio in these matters.

Section 3109.04 requires custody awards to rest on present circumstances rather than possible future events.

Seibert v. Seibert · filed 1990-03-12(B)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(A) requires a court to allocate parental rights and responsibilities when a divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding involves minor children.

Schroeder v. Perez · filed 1995-11-09(A)

However, with the adoption of S.B. No. 3, which became effective April 11,1991, it became mandatory for the court to make a parenting determination in any divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding in which there were minor children.

Section 3109.04 does not require testimony from both parents for a court to determine a child’s best interests.

Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy, Unpublished Decision (3-16-1999) · filed 1999-03-16

Suffice it here to state that we know of no authority, nor does appellant bring any to our attention, that requires the testimony of both parents in order to comply with R.C. 3109.04 .

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require modification of a shared parenting plan merely because a child wants to live with one parent and there are concerns about the other parent’s home; the change must serve the child’s best interest.

Ontko v. Ontko, Unpublished Decision (11-12-1999) · filed 1999-11-12(E)(1)(a)

While we agree that appellant's concerns may be valid as to appellee's cluttered home, the odor issue, and Allison's difficulties with appellee, such considerations do not necessarily indicate a need for a change in the custody arrangement. Rather, it indicates that the parties need help to address those concerns, preferably through family and post-divorce counseling. Therefore, based upon facts presented in the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in its determination to maintain the shared parenting plan.

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

Rahe v. Rahe, Unpublished Decision (9-15-2000) · filed 2000-09-15(F)(1)

To determine the best interests of the children, the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including those set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts allocating parental rights to consider all relevant factors in determining a child’s best interests.

Constantino v. Constantino, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2000) · filed 2000-10-25(F)(1)

After reviewing the record, this Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its custody allocation. The magistrate considered the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (F) and determined that it would be in John's best interest if he lived with Appellee because John would have a stable lifestyle.

In allocating parental rights and responsibilities, a court must consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest, including those listed in subsection (F)(1).

Rees v. Rees, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2000) · filed 2000-12-13(F)(1)

In determining the best interest of the child, the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, those factors listed in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

In allocating parental rights, section 3109.04(F)(1)(h) permits consideration of evidence that a parent was convicted of an offense causing physical harm to a household member.

MacKey v. MacKey, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2001) · filed 2001-01-17(F)(1)(h)

Although the record does not reflect whether he was convicted of domestic violence, pursuant to R.C. 2919.25 , there was evidence presented that he was "convicted of * * * [an] 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 current proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense[.]" R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(h). Further, the evidence showed that Ms. Mackey was the primary caregiver of the children. ... Accordingly, we can discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in allocating sole parental rights and responsibilities to Ms. Mackey and providing for visitation with Mr. Mackey.

Section 3109.04 gives courts discretion in child custody matters under statutory factors focused on the best interests of the child.

Wingate v. Wingate, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2001) · filed 2001-01-26

Courts have discretion in matters of child custody in accord with the elements, standards and factors of R.C. 3109.04 , which focus on the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors for a relocation request when a divorce decree requires court permission to relocate the children but provides no standard for granting it.

Zimmer v. Zimmer, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2001) · filed 2001-02-27(F)(1)

The terms of the agreed divorce decree do not provide a standard for the trial court to employ in determining whether it will grant a court order allowing appellant to relocate the children. Thus, the trial court employed the best interest of the children test from R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), which concerns the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children and considers factors such as the wishes of the parents and the children, the children's relationship with family members, the children's adjustment to their home, school and community, and previous actions of the parents. This test is more appropriate to a relocation situation than the best interest of the children test in R.C. 3109.051 (D), which focuses on issues surrounding visitation.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) calls for consideration of relevant factors bearing on the children's best interests when deciding which parent should be residential parent.

Smith v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (5-18-2001) · filed 2001-05-18(F)(1)

Next, under R.C. 3109.04 (F) (1) the Court reviewed the relevant factors as to the childrens' best interests. ... This trial court determines that the trial court followed each applicable statutory standard as interpreted by the referenced cases.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a trial court to consider the child’s best interest when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Dodd v. Dodd, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2001) · filed 2001-07-13(B)(1)

In deciding the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, a trial court must consider the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of the child’s best-interest factors when designating a residential parent; a designation supported by the record is within the trial court’s discretion.

Culichia v. Ghent, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2001) · filed 2001-08-28(F)(1)

The trial court cited R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), as providing the factors the court must consider in determining the best interest of the child. ... We have reviewed the record, and we find the judgment of the trial court is supported by evidence in the record. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court making an initial allocation of parental rights and responsibilities to consider all relevant factors bearing on the children’s best interests, including the factors listed in the statute.

Collins v. Collins, Unpublished Decision (10-15-2001) · filed 2001-10-15(F)(1)

When making an initial allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, the primary concern of the trial court is the children's best interest. R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1). The trial court must consider all relevant factors related to the children's best interest, including those factors specified by R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1): (a) The wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's care; (b) If the court has interviewed the child in chambers * * * regarding the child's wishes and concerns as to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities concerning the child, the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court; (c) 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; (d) The child's adjustment to the child's home, school, and community; (e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation; (f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights; (g) 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; (h) Whether either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an abused child or a neglected child; * * *. (i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied the other parent's right to parenting time in accordance with an order of the court; (j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside this state.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) requires the court to consider the child’s interaction and relationship with the parents, including evidence of which parent has been the principal caregiver.

Yeaton v. Yeaton, Unpublished Decision (11-02-2001) · filed 2001-11-02(F)(1)(c)

There is evidence that Bridgett has been Lindsey's principal care-giver during her life. That evidence is relevant to "[t]he child's interaction and interrelationship with (her) parents," a factor the court is required to consider. R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(c).

Section 3109.04 requires courts allocating custody to consider all factors relevant to the child's best interests and permits a broad inquiry to inform that decision.

Roseborough v. Roseborough, Unpublished Decision (11-02-2001) · filed 2001-11-02(B)(1), (F)(1)(a)-(j)

The statutory standard for custody decisions is written broadly and requires domestic relations judges to consider all factors that are relevant to the best interests of the child. R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) and (F)(1)(a)-(j). The purpose of this far-reaching inquiry is to let judges make fully informed decisions on the important issue of which parent will raise a child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court deciding a child’s best interests to consider false accusations of sexual abuse as an additional factor, including their effect on compliance with visitation orders.

In the Matter of Nentwick, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2002) · filed 2002-03-26(F)(1)

A trial court is also permitted to consider other factors not listed in R.C. § 3109.04 (F) in making its decision as to the best interests of the child. See R.C. § 3109.04 (F)(1). False accusations of sexual abuse would certainly have an impact on a parent's willingness to honor visitation orders. Such accusations constitute a legitimate additional factor for a trial court to consider in making a custody determination.

Section 3109.04(E) requires a best-interest determination before a court modifies or terminates a shared parenting decree.

Stillings v. Stillings, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2004) · filed 2004-06-28(E)

While the Revised Code provides varying methods by which a court may modify or terminate a shared parenting decree, notably, under each provision of R.C. 3109.04 (E), the court is always required to determine whether such modification or termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(C) allows a court to consider a court investigator’s comments about neighborhood safety when deciding a child’s best interest.

Sheridan v. Sheridan, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2005) · filed 2005-11-10(C)

While the statute does not specifically require an investigation of the safety of the neighborhood in which the child would reside, the court is free to consider all relevant information when making the best interest determination. The safety and welfare of a child is certainly relevant to the best interest determination. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the investigator's comments from his consideration.

In allocating parental rights, a court must consider the children’s best interests and all relevant factors under subsection (F)(1), plus the subsection (F)(2) factors when deciding whether shared parenting is in their best interests.

Ockunzzi v. Ockunzzi, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2006) · filed 2006-11-02(F)

When making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children, the court is required to take into account the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (B). In determining the best interest of the children, the court is to consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, those factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1). Also, in determining whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the children, the court is to additionally consider the relevant factors enumerated under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(2).

Section 3109.04’s best-interest standard applies to termination of a guardianship when the parent has permanently relinquished custody; a temporary guardianship that preserves the parent’s permanent custody rights is governed by the good-cause standard instead.

In Matter of Clowtis, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2006) · filed 2006-12-22

The determination of whether father forfeited his custody rights is vital, as it dictates which standard is to be applied in this termination proceeding: the "best interest of the child" standard under R.C. 3109.04 ; or, the "good cause" standard set forth in R.C. 2111.46 . If the probate court determines that a parent has permanently relinquished custody, then the best interest standard must be used in adjudicating a motion to terminate the guardianship. Sanders at 613; In re Guardianship of Joles , 11th Dist. No. 99-L-087, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2987 , at 4-5 . If, however, the probate court finds that a parent has not forfeited his permanent custodial rights, then that court is under no duty to apply the best interest standard. Instead, it can terminate a guardianship based solely on the "good cause" standard mandated by R.C. 2111.46 .

Section 3109.04(F) does not require separate findings on a proposed fixed schedule when the court considers the relevant best-interest factors and finds that leaving the shared parenting plan unchanged serves the child’s best interest.

Hodson v. Hodson, Unpublished Decision (8-29-2007) · filed 2007-08-29(F)

The Judgment Entry does not contain any specific factual findings or conclusions of law regarding the "fixed schedule" in the Proposed SPP, nor is it required to do so if it states that the trial court found, after consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F), that it is in the best interest of the child for the SPP to continue unmodified.

Section 3109.04(B) requires a court allocating custody to determine the child’s best interest.

Pahl v. Haugh · filed 2011-03-21(B)

In allocating custody, the trial court must determine what is in the “best interest” of the child. See R.C. 3109.04(B).

Section 3109.04(F) provides the best-interest factors used to assess whether awarding legal custody to a relative serves the children’s best interests.

In re J.P. · filed 2016-03-25(F)

In doing so, we look to the best-interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a juvenile court deciding a child’s best interest in a legal custody case to consider all relevant factors, including applicable statutory factors.

In re A.R. · filed 2016-07-11(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 set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) requires consideration of a child’s interactions with parents, siblings, and others, but does not require the court to discuss each potentially relevant person explicitly.

Schutz v. Schutz · filed 2017-02-24(F)(1)(c)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c) pertains to interaction with parents, siblings, and others who may affect the child’s best interests. The trial court did not specifically mention the half-siblings, but the court was not required to explicitly detail a long list of persons who may or may not interact with the children and address each one.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors for awarding legal custody, including the wishes of the parents and child, family relationships, the child’s adjustment, health, willingness to honor visitation, and child-support compliance.

In re J.T. · filed 2017-04-07(F)(1)

The pertinent best-interest factors are found in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... As relevant here, they include (1) the parents’ wishes, (2) the child’s wishes, (3) the child’s interaction with parents, siblings, and others, (4) the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community, (5) the mental and physical health of all persons involved, (6) the parent more likely to honor visitation, and (7) whether either parent has failed to make required child-support payments.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) calls for consideration of nonexclusive best-interest factors in custody decisions; a parent’s conduct that leaves the children in conditions amounting to neglect can support custody with the other parent.

Glover v. Glover · filed 2017-06-05(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides a nonexclusive list of factors a trial court must consider in making a best interest determination These include: ... In this case, Sidney’s malice toward Tierra was so great, that he happily put his daughters into a situation amounting to neglect, just for revenge. This indicates to us the children’s best interests are served by being in the custody of their mother, in Las Vegas, where she can make a living at her profession.

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

In re A.D. · filed 2017-07-21(F)(1)

Here, in determining what is in the best interests of the children, the trial court reviewed all the evidence and considered the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). Reviewing the court’s findings and the record in this matter, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion when it found that it was in the children’s best interests to be placed in legal custody of nonparent caregivers.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights to consider all relevant best-interest factors when choosing a residential parent and legal custodian.

Adkins v. Adkins · filed 2017-11-20(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. ... The record reflects that the trial court considered all relevant factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and applied those factors in making its decision designating Mother residential parent and legal custodian.

Section 3109.04(F) gives the court discretion to weigh relevant factors when determining the child’s best interests in a custody award.

Thomas v. Thomas · filed 2017-11-22(F)

R.C. 3109.04(F) provides the court with discretion to weigh the relevant factors and determine how those factors apply to the child's best interests.

In an original custody proceeding, § 3109.04 requires a decision based on the child’s best interest, considering the factors in subsection (F)(1) and other relevant circumstances.

Stevens v. Rowe · filed 2018-03-09(B)(1), (F)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), when allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children in an original proceeding, the court shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of the child. ... Turning to the relevant factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), and other relevant considerations, the trial court heard evidence and reviewed exhibits indicating that both parents desired custody of A.S, and A.S. at 18 months-old, was too young to express her wishes. ... Upon review of the record, we find the award of custody to father was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the relevant best-interest factors for a juvenile court deciding legal custody of a dependent child under the totality of the circumstances.

In re K.Q. · filed 2018-03-12(F)(1)

The trial court fully considered all relevant factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). The court’s findings were supported by the evidence received at the hearing and its legal conclusion was, under the totality of the circumstances, eminently reasonable.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) and (F)(2) require a court to consider the relevant best-interest factors when deciding whether to approve a shared parenting plan.

Egan v. Buchnowski · filed 2018-03-30(F)(1) and (F)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (F)(2) enumerate certain factors a court must consider in determining whether shared parenting is in the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest standard for juvenile-court custody determinations under R.C. 2151.353.

In re A.F. · filed 2018-01-26(F)(1)

When a juvenile court makes a custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, it must do so in accordance with the “best interest of the child” standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(B)(1) governs an allocation of custody by the child’s best interest standard and does not require an express finding that a parent abandoned the child.

Gonzalez v. Rodriguez · filed 2018-06-21(B)(1)

Santos Gonzalez filed a complaint for an allocation of custody, which is governed by the standards of R.C. 3109.04. In particular, the custody determination is governed by "the best interest" of the child. R.C. 3109.04(B)(1). The trial court fulfilled its obligation to make a determination under this standard when it adopted the magistrate's decision stating that it was in the "best interest" of E.S. to designate Santos Gonzalez the residential parent and legal custodian, and noted that his putative father had "no contact with the child for eight years." (Sept. 14, 2016 Decision at 3.) The trial court did not err when it declined to expressly determine that the putative father had "abandoned" E.S.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a juvenile court deciding a child’s best interests in a legal custody disposition to consider all relevant factors.

In re L.S. · filed 2018-05-21(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) requires a court allocating parental rights to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest, including the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community.

Payson v. Hennessey · filed 2018-06-25(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04’s best-interests factors do not make any single factor controlling; the court has discretion to weigh each factor.

In re E.N. · filed 2018-09-28(F)(1)

Under the R.C. 3109.04 best-interests test, no single factor is controlling. The weight to be given to any factor also lies within the court’s discretion.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights to weigh the relevant best-interest factors as a whole; factors favoring one parent do not alone require designating that parent.

Morgan v. Morgan · filed 2018-10-15(B)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) states that a trial court must consider a child's best interests when allocating parental rights and responsibilities. ... However, while the trial court did find some factors weighed in favor of Father, the trial court based its decision on a weighing of all the relevant best interest factors.

In deciding whether to modify custody, a court may weigh concerns about potential harm from a parent’s drug use against the children’s present adjustment and progress under the best-interest factors.

C.L. v. S.M. · filed 2018-12-28(F)(1)

... we cannot say that the trial court’s careful consideration and balancing of the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors constituted an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court to consider the child’s best interests when making an initial custody determination between parents.

In re A.B. · filed 2019-01-08(B)(1)

Of importance and relevance here, R.C. 3109.04 governs courts awarding parental rights and responsibilities and requires the best interests of the child be taken into consideration in making those determinations.

Section 3109.04(D)(2) provides a best-interest standard for custody decisions in divorce proceedings between parents, but that standard does not govern a juvenile-court custody contest between a parent and a nonparent.

In re R.D.B. · filed 2019-04-26(D)(2)

Moreover, the analysis in which the trial court engaged in reaching its decision illustrates that the court properly applied the “unsuitable parent” standard set forth in Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (see 8/14/18 Decision and Judgment, pp. 2-5), not R.C. 3109.04(D)(2)’s inapposite “best interest” standard, for which Aunt advocates.

In determining a child's best interest for custody, a court must consider all relevant factors, and no single factor controls; the court has discretion to weigh them.

In re I. W. · filed 2019-04-24(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider “all relevant factors” in determining the child’s best interest for purposes of making a custody determination and delineates factors for the court to consider in making its determination. No single factor is controlling under R.C. 3109.04, and the weight to be given to each factor falls within the court’s discretion.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies nonexclusive best-interest factors for deciding a grandparent’s request for legal custody.

In re E.S.K. · filed 2019-04-29(F)(1)

Instead, the factors that a court should consider when determining the best interest of a child are codified in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and include, but are not limited to: (1) the wishes of the child's parents; (2) the child's wishes, as expressed to the court in chambers; (3) the child's interactions and interrelationships with parents, siblings, and other persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests; (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 visitation; (7) whether one parent has denied the other of parenting time; (8) whether child support orders have been followed; and (9) whether either parent has established or is planning to establish a residence outside of Ohio. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j) ... In the present case, the magistrate and juvenile court both referenced and discussed the best interest factors set forth in R.C 3109.04(F)(1) in denying Grandmother's complaint and motion for custody of E.S.K.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires the court to consider the statutory best-interest factors when deciding whether to reallocate parental rights; a conclusion that omits that analysis warrants remand.

In re C.R.W · filed 2019-06-19(F)(1)

We further find that the trial court acted arbitrarily when it did not consider the factors in R.C. 3109.04 in determining C.R.W.’s best interest. Therefore, the judgment entry of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for a detailed consideration of the best interests of the child and, if applicable, an analysis of the potential benefits/harm resulting from a change in custody.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest standard for a juvenile court deciding legal custody under section 2151.353.

In re A.T. · filed 2019-08-30(F)(1)

When making a legal custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, the juvenile court must apply the “best interest of the child” standard set forth at R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04 supplies the best interest standard for deciding whether to grant legal custody of a dependent child to a third party under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3).

In re C.H. · filed 2019-10-21

In deciding whether to grant legal custody to a third party under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), a juvenile court must apply the “best interest” standard delineated in R.C. 3109.04.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best interest of the child standard for legal custody determinations under R.C. 2151.353.

In re S.F. · filed 2020-02-28(F)(1)

When making a legal custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, the juvenile court must apply the “best interest of the child” standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

In allocating parental rights after a shared parenting plan ends, the court considers the statutory best-interest factors and may award custody when substantial credible evidence supports its assessment.

Hanshaw v. Hanshaw · filed 2019-09-03(F)(1)

“In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to this section, * * * the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: ... “(j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside this state.” R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... Upon considering the applicable factors and the evidence, we find the trial court’s decision naming Wendy residential parent and legal custodian is supported by a substantial amount of credible and competent evidence.

Section 3109.04(F) directs courts to consider relevant factors and gives them discretion to weigh those factors in determining a child’s best interests.

Carpenter v. Carpenter · filed 2019-11-14(F)

In this case, the trial court considered the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04(F). R.C. 3109.04(F) 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)(1) requires a custody decision grounded in the child’s best interests; the trial court need not discuss each statutory factor individually, but the record must support its determination.

Jensen v. Jensen · filed 2019-11-15(F)(1)

The trial court is not required to discuss the factors in R.C. 3109.04 individually when making its best-interest determination. ... Given the sparse record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by allocating parental rights and responsibilities and visitation as it did.

A child’s autism diagnosis is relevant to the best interest analysis under the mental and physical health factor.

In re J.S. · filed 2019-11-20(F)(1)(e)

Further, taking into consideration the child has been diagnosed as autistic directly bears upon R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(e).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a juvenile court deciding a child’s best interest in a legal custody proceeding to consider all relevant factors, including applicable statutory factors.

In re Z.D. · filed 2020-01-27(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, but not limited to, any applicable factors provided in R.C. 3109.04(F).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires an initial custody award to rest on the child’s best interests after consideration of the relevant statutory factors.

Lee v. Starr · filed 2020-04-22(F)(1)

Under these circumstances, the trial court's custody determination need only be based on the best interests of the child according to R.C. 3109.04(F). ... Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion it was in the best interest to name Appellee the residential parent and legal custodian. The trial court found that the magistrate in her decision thoroughly analyzed the factors and the findings were supported by the record.

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(c) permits a court assessing a child’s best interest to consider people with whom the child has significant contact, even if they have no intimate relationship with a parent.

Lowe v. Lowe · filed 2020-05-01(F)(1)(c)

As part of its determination of the children’s best interest, the trial court was entitled to consider individuals with whom the minor children would have significant contact, regardless of whether that person had an intimate relationship with a parent.

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

In re C.R. · filed 2020-11-06(F)(1)

When making a legal custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, the juvenile court must apply the “best interest of the child” standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

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

In re J.C. · filed 2020-12-04(F)(1)

When making a legal custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, the juvenile court must apply the “best interest of the child” standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

In deciding a child’s best interest, a court may give decisive weight to the child’s relationship with a sibling when the other relevant factors do not strongly favor either parent.

Costilla v. Weimerskirch · filed 2021-01-25(F)(1)(c)

In this case, where most of the relevant factors did not tilt strongly in favor of either party, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for the magistrate and the trial court to give decisive weight to J.C.’s relationship with K.T.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities in an original proceeding to consider the children’s best interests.

Miller v. Dendinger · filed 2021-03-01(B)(1)

When making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children under this section in an original proceeding, the court shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of the children. R.C. 3109.04(B)(1).

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider the best interests of the children.

FitzGerald v. FitzGerald · filed 2021-03-12(B)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) then requires that in making that allocation, the court shall consider the best interest of the children.

In allocating parental rights according to the child’s best interest, the court may favor the parent more likely to honor and facilitate the other parent’s court-ordered parenting time.

In re J.S. · filed 2021-05-14(F)(1)(f)

Appellee sought an allocation of parental rights and responsibilities through an original action pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(B)(1). ... The record also shows that while appellee was entitled to parenting time under both interim orders, appellant refused to facilitate appellee’s parenting time unless he agreed to additional conditions not required by the trial court. ... The record shows that K.V. was safe and comfortable at appellee’s residence and that appellee was more likely to abide by its order and facilitate appellant’s parenting time.

After a parent has contractually relinquished custody to a nonparent, competing legal-custody motions may be resolved using the best-interest factors in § 3109.04(F)(1).

In re A.L. · filed 2021-05-24(F)(1)

Therefore, the juvenile court did not err in resolving the parties' competing motions for legal custody of the child utilizing a best interest analysis. ... We further find that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody of A.L. to Paternal Grandmother following its consideration of the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best-interest factors for legal custody decisions, including the wishes of the parent and child and the child’s relationships with others.

In re L.H. · filed 2021-10-01(F)(1)

With regard to the best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), as relevant here they include the wishes of Mother and L.H. as well as L.H.’s interaction and relationship with others, including Mother, his siblings, and anyone else who significantly may affect his best interest.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts deciding whether to award legal custody to a nonparent to consider all relevant best-interest factors, including the listed factors.

In re Lu.B. · filed 2021-12-17(F)(1)

“R.C. 3109.04 specifies the best interest factors courts must consider when determining whether to award legal custody to a nonparent.”

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

Romohr v. Singer · filed 2022-01-10(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04 requires a court deciding whether to grant shared parenting to consider all relevant best-interest factors, including the factors in (F)(1) and (F)(2).

Ayers v. Ayers · filed 2022-02-11(F)(1), (F)(2)

The trial courts duty is to “consider” all relevant factors, including the ten factors of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and the five factors of R.C. 3109.04(F)(2), and that is exactly what the trial court did.

Section 3109.04 requires courts allocating parental rights to consider the child's best-interest factors even when a parent loves the children and wants shared parenting.

Vaughn v. Vaughn · filed 2022-05-31(F)(1), (F)(2)

To hold otherwise would render the best-interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) meaningless to a domestic relations court when awarding parental rights and responsibilities under R.C. 3109.04.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors courts typically use when deciding whether to return a child to a parent’s legal custody.

In re M.W. · filed 2022-06-17(F)(1)

When considering whether to return a child to the legal custody of a parent, courts typically look to the best-interest factors found in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F) requires a custody decision to consider the child’s best interests, using its listed factors without treating them as exhaustive.

A.H. v. W.E.H. · filed 2022-07-21(F)

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) lists the relevant factors in determining the best interests of the child, but these statutory factors are not all-inclusive.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody after an abuse or dependency adjudication must consider all relevant best-interest factors, including the applicable factors in § 3109.04(F).

In re A.M.W. · filed 2022-08-22(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). Id.

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

In re A.L.M. · filed 2022-09-23(F)(1)

A custody determination under R.C. 2151.353 is made in accordance with the “best interest of the child” standard described in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

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

In re J.M. · filed 2022-10-12(F)(1)

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

In deciding child custody, a court must consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest.

Sanchez v. Casiano · filed 2022-11-23(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides that the trial court shall consider all relevant factors when determining the best interest of a child.

Section 3109.04 requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities in an original proceeding to consider the children's best interests and all relevant factors.

Gupta v. Sharan · filed 2022-12-13(B)(1)

Upon review of the record, we find no error in the trial court's analysis or conclusion as to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. As required by R.C. 3109.04, the trial court considered the best interest of the children in concluding that appellee should be awarded full custody of the children.

Section 3109.04 requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider all relevant factors bearing on the children’s best interests, including the factors listed in subsection (F)(1).

Owens v. Owens · filed 2022-09-30(F)(1)

In determining the best interest of the children, the court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors expressly listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest standard for a juvenile court custody determination under section 2151.353.

In re Z.C. · filed 2023-03-24(F)(1)

“When a juvenile court makes a custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, it must do so in accordance with the ‘best interest of the child’ standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) permits a court to consider a child’s expressed wishes, a safety incident, and the child’s living situation when deciding whether a shared parenting modification serves the child’s best interest.

Reese v. Reese · filed 2023-02-07(F)(1)

In reviewing the trial court's best-interest determination and the factors on which it relied, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion. To reiterate, the trial court's charge was to review whether modifying the 2014 Shared Parenting Plan to permanently, rather than on an emergency basis, assign appellant, rather than appellee, as the primary residential parent was prompted by a change in circumstance that would be in the best interest of the child. The trial court expressly considered in its decision the Bahamas incident which prompted the emergency motion to modify, the expressed wishes of the child made during in camera interviews with the magistrate and trial court, as well as the child's new living situation with father as a result of his remarriage.

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

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2023-03-06(F)(1)

To determine what is in 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) permits consideration of a parent’s role as primary caregiver in assessing a child’s best interest, but that role does not control the custody decision.

Marlowe v. Marlowe · filed 2023-04-28(F)(1)

Subsection (F)(1)’s catchall provision allows the trial court to consider factors outside of the statute in its best-interests determination. This includes considering the role of one parent as the children’s primary caregiver. Importantly, “[a] party’s status as a child’s primary caregiver is a relevant factor which a court should consider in evaluating a child’s best interest, but it is not a controlling factor.” (Emphasis added.)

Section 3109.04 requires a court allocating parental rights to determine the child’s best interest by considering all relevant factors, including the statutory factors, and permits the allocation when supported by those findings.

Brew v. Brew · filed 2023-05-03(F)(1)

When allocating parental rights, the trial court must determine what is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(B)(1). In making this determination, the trial court considers all relevant factors, including the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j). R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). ... The record reflects that the trial court fully considered all of the relevant statutory factors and set forth specific, meaningful findings under each statutory factor. ... Based on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating parental rights.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest standard for a juvenile court deciding legal custody under section 2151.353.

In re G.D. · filed 2023-06-09(F)(1)

When a juvenile court makes a custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, it must do so in accordance with the “best interest of the child” standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

A juvenile court deciding legal custody of a dependent child under R.C. 2151.353 must apply the best-interest-of-the-child standard in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

In re J.H. · filed 2023-09-08(F)(1)

When a juvenile court makes a custody determination under R.C. 2151.353, it must do so in accordance with the “best interest of the child” standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires courts making custody decisions to apply the child’s best-interest standard.

In re A.A.R. · filed 2024-02-16(F)(1)

When courts make custody decisions, they “must do so in accordance with the ‘best interest of the child’ as forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).”