Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies nonexhaustive best-interest factors for custody disputes between a parent and a nonparent.

In re M.H. · filed 2023-10-18(F)(1)

And when a juvenile court resolves a custody dispute between a parent and nonparent, the nonexhaustive statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) govern its best-interest analysis.

In deciding a child’s best interests for legal custody, a court considers all relevant factors, including those listed in § 3109.04(F).

In re W.P. · filed 2023-11-13(F)

To determine the best interests of the child, the juvenile court considers all relevant factors, including those identified in R.C. 3109.04(F).

Prior sole caretaking bears on the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community, but is not a separate statutory best-interest factor.

In re D.K. · filed 2023-11-17(F)(1)(d)

First, while mother was the sole caretaker of the Twins prior to the juvenile court’s grant of custody to father, that is not a statutory best-interest factor except insofar as the children have adjusted to their home, school, and community while under mother’s care. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) does not require a finding of active harm to the child for a custody modification to be in the child’s best interest.

In re L.F. · filed 2023-11-22(F)(1)

The best interest analysis does not require courts to find active harm to the child in order to determine a custody modification is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest standard for deciding legal custody of a dependent child under Section 2151.353, including consideration of the mental and physical health of those involved.

In re D.P. · filed 2024-02-09(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). The factors which must be considered include things like the “parents’ wishes; the child’s wishes, if the court has interviewed the child; the child’s interaction with parents, siblings, and other who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; adjustment of the child to home, school, and community; and the mental and physical health of all involved persons.”

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a custody court to consider all relevant statutory factors when deciding a child’s best interest.

Westerling v. Westerling · filed 2024-03-08(F)(1)

Such a determination requires the court to consider all relevant factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires consideration of the best-interest factors when deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest, and a factor analysis supported by competent, credible evidence sustains a modification.

Wireman v. Wireman · filed 2023-08-28(F)(2)

Competent, credible evidence supports the custody and school placement decisions made by the trial court and those decisions are not against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in that regard.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court to consider the child’s best interest factors when allocating parenting time; reducing a parent’s time based on work-related missed visits, difficulty paying support, and mutual communication problems can be an abuse of discretion.

A.E. v. J.E. · filed 2024-04-25(F)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 governs the allocation of parental rights and requires a court to consider the best interest of the child. ... We find the reduction in Husband’s parenting time was an abuse of discretion under these circumstances.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) allows a juvenile court to consider its best interest factors when deciding legal custody after a dependency adjudication.

In re J.S. · filed 2024-06-20(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors for deciding legal custody between nonparents.

In re I.V. · filed 2024-07-26(F)(1)

The trial court may adjudicate claims for legal custody between non-parents by conducting a best interest analysis in accordance with the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors may guide juvenile courts in legal custody decisions.

In re J.S. · filed 2024-08-30(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.

In determining a child’s best interest under § 3109.04(F)(1), the trial court decides how much weight to give each statutory factor.

Lee v. Capalungan · filed 2024-09-30(F)(1)

However, it is for the trial court to consider and weigh the evidence presented at the hearing and determine the appropriate weight to afford each factor.

When deciding a child’s best interests in a custody modification, a court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the ten factors in § 3109.04(F)(1).

Ijakoli v. Alungbe · filed 2024-11-06(F)(1)

Best- interest determinations must be guided by “all relevant factors, including but not limited to” ten statutory factors enumerated under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(h) requires a trial court to consider whether either parent acted in a way that made a child abused or neglected when determining the child’s best interests.

Zibaie v. Zibaie · filed 2024-03-26(F)(1)(h)

Under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(h), a trial court shall consider, as a relevant factor in determining the best interests of the children, “whether there is reason to believe that either parent has acted in a manner resulting in a child being an abused or a neglected child.”

The best-interest factors permit a residential-parent designation based on stable housing, employment, caregiving, and family relationships despite the parent having withheld the child before any custody order existed.

In re G.H. · filed 2024-10-11(F)(1)

Based on this information, it was not unreasonable for the magistrate and trial court to conclude that it was in G.H.’s best interest to name father G.H.’s residential parent and legal custodian.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires consideration of all relevant factors, including each parent’s conduct, but does not require a specific finding that a parent abandoned or neglected a child.

J.M.R. v. M.D.O. · filed 2024-12-05(F)(1)

In making this determination, the court must consider all relevant factors—which necessarily includes each parent’s conduct—but the court is not required to make a specific finding as to whether a parent has abandoned or neglected a child.

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

Garrett v. Kronk · filed 2025-03-10(F)(1)

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

Section 3109.04(F) requires a custody court to consider the child’s best interests using its nonexhaustive list of factors.

D.S.K. v. T.J.K. · filed 2025-04-17(F)

R.C. 3109.04(F) provides a nonexhaustive list of factors the trial court must consider in determining the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(2) requires a court deciding whether shared parenting serves a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors without treating any one factor as controlling.

Saylers v. Salyers · filed 2025-05-05(F)(2)

R.C. 3109.04(F) requires the trial court to consider “all relevant factors” in making its determination whether shared parenting is in the best interest of the child. “Under the best-interest test, no single factor is controlling, and the weight to be given to any factor lies within the trial court’s discretion.” In re L.L., 2020-Ohio-5609, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.).

Section 3109.04(F)(1) allows a court weighing a child’s best interests in a custody reallocation to consider a parent’s history of violence, involvement with child-services agencies, and mental-health diagnosis, even where the current custodian has neglected the child.

In re Z.L.A. · filed 2025-07-03(F)(1)

In considering whether to reallocate parental rights, the trial court was best positioned to weigh its concerns about Z.L.A.’s welfare in Mother’s care against its concerns about Father’s history of violence and criminal behavior, his history with children-services agencies, and his mental-health diagnosis. Although Father contends his past history and mental-health diagnosis had little relevance to his legal-custody motion, the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding otherwise.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) provides best-interest factors that may guide a juvenile court deciding a nonparent’s petition for legal custody of a dependent child.

In re R.K. · filed 2025-07-30(F)(1)

After JFS’s permanent-custody motion was granted, the juvenile court conducted the appropriate analyses regarding whether to place the children with grandmother. The entry reflects that it independently reviewed the record and acknowledged it must consider the factors under R.C. 2151.414(D) and R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(F)(1)(h) concerns adjudications of abuse or neglect, not dependency adjudications.

In re R.T. · filed 2025-05-22(F)(1)(h)

However, this subsection refers to children who are adjudicated abused or neglected. It does not refer to children who are adjudicated dependent.

Section 3109.04 requires parental rights and responsibilities to be allocated according to the child's best interest.

In Matter of Durr, Unpublished Decision (11-10-1999) · filed 1999-11-10

Parental rights and responsibilities are to be allocated based upon the "best interest of the child." ... We conclude, considering the record before us and having thoroughly reviewed it, that the trial court did not act against the manifest weight of the evidence by determining that Mr. Durr is to refrain from contacting Angel and is not entitled to custody or visitation.

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

In re P.S. · filed 2020-10-16(F)(1)

We have said that when a juvenile court makes a custody decision 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).” (Citations omitted.) In re D.S., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013- CA-51, 2014-Ohio-2444, ¶ 9.

Section 3109.04(F) supplies factors for assessing a child's best interests in a custody decision, including family relationships, adjustment to a home, and support for parenting time.

In re O.S. · filed 2025-11-17(F)

In dependency proceedings, the juvenile court can award legal custody to a nonparent if it is in the child's "best interests." R.C. 2151.353(A)(3); R.C. 3109.04(F). ... Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the magistrate made many findings that considered various relevant factors, including those identified by statute: (1) Father's desire for custody; (2) Mother's and the guardian ad litem's desire for custody to stay with the Joneses; (3) the children's strained relationships with their Father due to his history of alcohol abuse; (4) the children's success and assimilation into the Joneses' home; (5) the children's educational and social success with the Joneses; and (6) the Joneses' willingness to work with Mother and Father for visitation. We therefore conclude the juvenile court based its decision on competent and credible evidence.

Section 3109.04(A) requires a domestic relations court to allocate parental rights and responsibilities for minor children in a divorce.

Staats v. Bowerstock, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2007) · filed 2007-01-16(A)

Pursuant to the following statutory provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, we find that the Domestic Relations Court has the superseding obligation in this case to properly dispose of issues regarding the children of the divorcing parties. ... R.C. 3109.04 (A) asserts, In any divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding and in any proceeding pertaining to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of a child, upon hearing the testimony of either or both parents and considering any mediation report * * *, the court shall allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor children of the marriage.

In making an initial custody award, the court must determine the children's best interests by considering the non-exclusive factors in subsection (F)(1).

Siefker v. Siefker, Unpublished Decision (10-2-2006) · filed 2006-10-02(F)(1)

In making an initial custody award pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (A), the trial court must determine the children's best interests, considering the non-exclusive list of factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1)(a)-(j).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of a prior custody decree; when an unmarried mother has only the default custody status under section 3109.042, the first custody designation requires a best interests determination under section 3109.04(B)(1), without the modification requirements.

Self v. Turner, Unpublished Decision (11-27-2006) · filed 2006-11-27(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.042 confers a default status on Tonya as the residential parent until an order is issued by the trial court designating the residential parent and legal guardian. It is not, in and of itself, a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities and, 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 (B)(1) rather than the requirements set forth under R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities before its custody-modification standard applies; without one, the court makes an initial custody determination under the best-interest standard.

Horning v. Wolff, Unpublished Decision (12-4-2006) · filed 2006-12-04(E)(1)(a)

Similarly, since, in the case sub judice, there was no past decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, there was no prior decree that the trial court could modify. ... Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in treating the proceedings as an initial custody determination and applying the best interest of the child standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04 .

Section 3109.04 governs the procedure and rules for custody disputes arising in domestic relations court.

In Re C.R., Unpublished Decision (8-26-2004) · filed 2004-08-26

R.C. 3109.04 addresses the procedure and rules for custody disputes arising in domestic relations court.

Section 3109.04 governs the procedure and rules for custody disputes arising in domestic-relations court.

In Re S.M. · filed 2005-05-05

Child-custody disputes in Ohio fall within the purview of one of two statutes, depending on where the case originates. R.C. 3109.04 addresses the procedure and rulés for custody disputes arising in domestic-relations court.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify an existing custody decree, while an initial custody determination proceeds directly to the child’s best interests.

Esaw v. Esaw, Unpublished Decision (6-25-2003) · filed 2003-06-25(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), which governs modification of an existing decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, requires a demonstration that there has been a change in circumstances brought about by facts that have changed since the date of the prior decree or which were unknown to the movant at that time. ... Because there was no prior decree either allocating parental responsibilities or awarding custody, the trial court did not need to first look for a change in circumstances but, instead, could proceed directly to a best interest analysis.

For an initial custody award, § 3109.04(C) requires consideration of how a parent’s relationship affects the child’s best interests, without requiring a finding that the relationship adversely affected the child.

Mohrman v. Mohrman · filed 1989-04-14(C)

However, this is not a change-of-custody case; therefore, although the trial court was required to consider the effect appellant’s lesbian relationship had on Cory as it related to his best interests, we hold that the court was not required to find that the relationship had an “adverse impact” in order to award custody to appellee.

For an initial custody award under subsection (A), the court may decide custody solely on the child's best interests; a change of circumstances is required for a custody modification.

Kampfer v. Kampfer · filed 1990-12-31(A)

This is an original request for custody (as distinguished from a proceeding to modify custody) triggering the application of R.C. 3109.04(A). ... When considering a change of custody, the court must find a change of circumstances rendering the prior custody order to no longer be in the child's best interests. On an original custody proceeding, the court may make an award of custody based solely on the child's best interests.

Section 3109.04(A) places no burden of proof on either parent in an original custody award; each may offer evidence relevant to the child’s best interest.

Biller v. Biller · filed 1990-03-12(A)

In an original custody award, the court is to award custody based upon the child's best interest "[u]pon hearing the testimony of either or both parents ***." R.C. 3109.04(A). The statute does not establish a burden of proof for either parent. Instead, each parent may provide evidence bearing upon the relevant factors the court must consider in determining the child's best interest.

An initial custody award requires a best interest determination without a showing of changed circumstances under subsection (E)(1)(a).

In Re Wells · filed 1995-12-26(E)(1)(a)

We further find that the trial court’s March 8, 1995 judgment entry awarding legal custody of Danielle to Adams was an initial award of custody which did not require a showing of change of circumstances. The trial court accordingly properly applied the best interest standard.

Section 3109.04 requires courts to apply the child’s best-interest standard and consider the same factors when initially allocating parental rights and when modifying an allocation.

Wietz v. Paulik and Hickey, Unpublished Decision (2-22-1999) · filed 1999-02-22

The Revised Code provides regardless of whether the court is making an original decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities or modifying a decree which allocated those rights and responsibilities, the court shall use the best interest of the child's standard, and consider the same factors.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) applies the best-interest test to an initial custody award when the parents’ earlier custody agreement was not incorporated into a court order.

Matter of the Custody of Shepherd, Unpublished Decision (3-19-1999) · filed 1999-03-19(B)(1)

Although the parties had a prior agreement concerning custody, the agreement was not incorporated into a court order. Until appellee filed the instant petition for custody, neither party sought or received a court order recognizing or assigning custody of the child. Thus, we find that the trial court correctly applied the R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) best interest test when addressing appellee's petition for custody.

In an original allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the factors listed in subsection (F)(1).

Piper v. Squicciarini, Unpublished Decision (12-20-1999) · filed 1999-12-20(F)(1)

In an action to determine an original allocation of parental rights and responsibilities the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including those set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

In an initial custody proceeding involving unmarried parents, section 3109.04(F) requires the court to apply its best interest test and listed factors.

In the Matter of Ramey, Unpublished Decision (12-22-1999) · filed 1999-12-22(F)

Instead, the court must apply the "best interest" test of R.C. 3109.04 (F), and the factors listed therein, following In Re Byrd (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 334 , 421 N.E.2d 1284 .

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court making an initial custody award to apply the child's best interest test.

In the Matter of Walters, Unpublished Decision (4-27-2000) · filed 2000-04-27(B)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) governs initial custody awards and requires the trial court making the initial custody award to apply a "best interest of the child test."

Section 3109.04(A) requires courts to consider the child’s best interest when making an initial allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

In Re Martin, Unpublished Decision (6-15-2005) · filed 2005-06-15(A)

R.C. 3109.04 (A), which governs initial custody determinations, provides that a trial court must consider the best interest of the child when allocating parental rights and responsibilities. ... But we note that there had been no prior decree determining custody, so this test could not have been applied. Instead, to determine custody between two parents of equal standing, the best-interests-of-the-child standard was applicable.

Section 3109.04(F) best-interests analysis is immaterial to a nonparent custody award when the parent has not abandoned the child and is not otherwise unsuitable.

In Re Custody of C.E., Unpublished Decision (11-4-2005) · filed 2005-11-04(F)

Although the magistrate had necessarily advanced to the second step of the analysis required by R.C. 3109.04 (F), and determined that it was in the best interests of each child to be placed in the custody of the grandparents, respectively, the trial court correctly noted that this issue became immaterial once it was determined that the mother had not abandoned the children and was not otherwise unsuitable.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of an existing custody decree, so its factors do not apply to an initial custody determination when no prior order allocated parental rights and responsibilities.

Flax v. Wise, Ca2007-05-017 (6-23-2008) · filed 2008-06-23(E)(1)(a)

Additionally, prior to Father filing his custody motion, there were no orders in place which allocated parental rights and responsibilities. Therefore, there is no need to analyze the factors laid out in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) which governs the modification of an existing decree.

An initial custody determination follows the best-interest standard in § 3109.04(B)(1), while the modification factors in § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) apply only when there is a prior custody decree.

In Re Colvin, 08-Ca-000005 (7-23-2008) · filed 2008-07-23(B)(1), (E)(1)(a)

Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in failing to apply the standard for an initial custody determination set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1). Because this was an initial custody determination, the trial court erred in considering the factors for modification of custody set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E) requires a custody change to rest on the child’s best interests, rather than serve as punishment for a parent’s failure to comply with court orders.

In re E.J.M. · filed 2011-03-02(E)

The court’s summary order changing custody is in the nature of a contempt finding, punishing appellant for her noncompliance with prior orders of the court regarding paying for the guardian ad litem and paying for psychological evaluations by changing custody without giving her an opportunity to be heard.

A court modifying a prior allocation of parental rights must find that the modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interests; a finding that the child adjusted well in the other parent’s home does not itself supply a best-interest analysis.

Enz v. Lewis · filed 2011-03-09(E)(1)(a)

Appellant contends that the trial court failed to properly conclude that a change of custody was necessary to serve the child’s best interest. We agree. Although the trial court did find that since residing with Appellee the minor child “has adjusted well over time,” this statement was not made as part of a best interest analysis. Further, nowhere in the magistrate’s decision or the trial court’s final judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision do the words “best interests” appear.

Section 3109.04’s best-interest standard applies to an initial allocation of parental rights for a child of unmarried parents.

In re D.J.R. · filed 2012-02-23(F)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(F)(1), the best interest standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04 applies in initial actions to allocate parental rights in cases involving children of unmarried parents. ... Applying the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of D.J.R. to father.

An initial custody determination under Section 3109.04(A)(1) does not require a threshold finding that circumstances have changed.

In re B.J.M. · filed 2013-06-12(A)(1)

Because the trial court was not modifying a custody order, and was instead making an initial determination, no threshold finding concerning a change in circumstances was necessary.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) requires an initial custody determination to be made in a manner consistent with the child’s best interest.

In re C.M. · filed 2013-12-12(A)(1)

When a court is making an initial custody determination, the decision is to be made “in a manner consistent with the best interest of the [child].” R.C. 3109.04(A)(1). ... Accordingly, after reviewing the entire record in this case, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in naming mother the residential parent and legal custodian of the children.

Section 3109.04 makes the child's best interest the guiding principle when a court terminates shared parenting and allocates custody.

Gribble v. Gribble · filed 2014-04-03

The court clearly followed the guidelines of R.C. 3109.04 in terminating the shared parenting agreement and in structuring future custody between the parties. As R.C. 3109.04 makes clear, the guiding principle in a custody matter is the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires courts making an original allocation of parental rights and responsibilities to consider the child’s best interests and all relevant factors, including those in subsection (F)(1).

In re H.Y. · filed 2014-06-20(B)(1)

R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) requires courts to take into account the best interests of the child when making an original allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. In making this decision, the court is required to take all factors into consideration, including the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Section 3109.04(E)(1) does not impose its modification standard when a court makes an initial custody determination after only a temporary order; the court applies the child’s best interests test.

In re J.K. · filed 2014-12-15(E)(1)

In accordance, as there was no prior final decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities here, this was not a modification case. Rather, only the best interests test applied in determining who should be named the residential parent.

Section 3109.04 requires custody determinations to be based on the best interests of the children.

Stepka v. McCormack · filed 2016-05-23

Next, R.C. 3109.04 requires a trial court to determine custody based upon the best interests of the children. ... Therefore, given the testimony adduced at trial, we cannot say that the trial court’s conclusion that Husband likely would have received greater parenting time in Ohio was merely speculative.

In an original custody proceeding with no prior custody determination, Section 3109.04 requires allocation based on the child’s best interests without a change-of-circumstances prerequisite.

Hurd v. Weatherbee · filed 2017-04-17(B)(1); (E)(1)(a)

Thus, in original proceedings where there has been no prior custody determination, it is improper for the trial court to condition its allocation of custody based on a change of circumstances.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires courts making an initial custody determination between parents to account for the children’s best interests.

Blausey v. Blausey · filed 2019-11-01(B)(1)

R.C. 3109.04 applies to initial custody determinations between parents, and provides that when allocating parental rights and responsibilities, “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(F)(1) best-interest factors may guide a court deciding a motion for legal custody, including the parents’ and child’s wishes, family relationships, adjustment, health, and parental abuse or neglect.

In re R.R. · filed 2023-06-22(F)(1)

Courts have also looked to the best-interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F) in determining what is in a child’s best interest for purpose of a motion for legal custody. ... Relevant to the issues in this appeal, those factors include: (1) the wishes of the child’s parents regarding the child’s care; (2) the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court; (3) the child’s interaction and interrelationships 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 and (6) whether there is reason to believe that either parent has acted in a manner resulting in a child being an abused child or a neglected child.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) makes the child’s best interest the sole custody criterion in a divorce dispute between parents, without requiring a prior finding that either parent is unfit.

Norman v. Norman · filed 2025-08-27(B)(1)

The best interest of the child, then, is the only consideration that a trial court weighs to determine custody in divorce cases when the divorcing parties are the child’s parents. ... The underlying action here was a divorce, so the trial court was not required to find that either parent was unfit before the court considered H.N.’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court modifying an allocation of parental rights between parents to consider the children’s best interests; it need not first find a parent unfit.

Patterson v. Jordan · filed 2026-05-11(B)(1)

Further, “[w]hen making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children under this section * * * in any proceeding for modification of a prior order of the court making the allocation, the court shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of the children.” R.C. 3109.04(B)(1). ... As such, we find the trial court did not violate Father’s substantive due process rights by failing to make a finding Father was unfit before considering the Children's best interest.

Section 3109.04 applies a best-interest-of-the-child test to custody decisions, rather than a strict parental-suitability test.

In the Matter of Wiltshire, Unpublished Decision (4-22-2002) · filed 2002-04-22

Moreover, appellant does not challenge per se the applicability of R.C. 3109.04 , which clearly enunciates a "best interest of the child" test, rather than a strict "suitability" test.

Section 3109.04(B)(2)(b) does not require the court to make its in camera interview determinations in a custody dispute between a natural parent and a nonparent when the child is neither their marital child nor their joint natural child.

Lorence v. Goeller, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2005) · filed 2005-06-01(B)(2)(b)

This case does not involve the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 , because the child is not the child of a marriage between the parties or the natural child of the parties. For the same reason that this Court found the parties' earlier purported shared parenting plan to be void ab initio, R.C. 3109.04 is not applicable in the determination and management of the instant custody dispute. The trial court had the jurisdiction to determine this matter pursuant to R.C. 2151.23 (A)(2) and was not bound by the mandates of R.C. 3109.04 (B)(2)(b).

Section 3109.04’s best-interest standard does not govern termination of a stand-alone probate guardianship where there has been no final custody disposition.

Hammons v. Chisholm, Unpublished Decision (3-06-2003) · filed 2003-03-06

The trial court therefore properly analyzed the father's motion to terminate the guardianship under the best interest of the child test, found in R.C. 3109.04 . ... Here, there was no final resolution of custody. A guardian does have custody of the ward during the duration of the guardianship but, again, the guardianship may be terminated upon a showing of good cause. R.C. 2111.06 , 2111.46 . Further, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to "appoint and remove guardians[.]" R.C. 2101.24 (A)(1)(e). Hammons consented merely to a guardianship, not to a final custody disposition. The probate court's disposition of the matter under the domestic relation's best interest of the child standard was improper.

Section 3109.04(B), effective September 23, 1974, does not govern a motion filed before that date to restore custody after a parent consented to a temporary custody order.

Leininger v. Leininger · filed 1975-04-11(B)

Since the temporary custody order of August 13, 1973, was made with the consent of the father who had previously been granted full custody, and since he had filed his motion to have custody restored to him by motion filed September 4, 1974, the newly enacted paragraph (B) (effective September 23, 1974) is inapplicable to these proceedings, and the Juvenile Court was not bound thereby.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) does not apply when joint custody is terminated.

Blair v. Blair · filed 1986-12-24(B)(1)

For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the modification section, R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), does not apply when joint custody is terminated.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) does not apply when a parent seeks to terminate a non-parent’s temporary custody award and regain custody.

In Re Custody of Carpenter · filed 1987-06-27(B)(1)

Because we conclude that it was error to have applied R.C. 3109.04(B) to a case in which temporary custody, only, has been awarded to a non-parent, we agree with the father, and the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and the cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) does not require a change of circumstances or a best-interest determination to terminate a temporary guardianship under R.C. 2111.46.

In re Spriggs · filed 1990-04-24(B)(1)

While the guardianship issue and custody issues may have been inextricably intertwined in Wonderly, supra, we do not read that case as requiring a trial court to utilize the requirements of a change of circumstances and the best interest of the child set forth in R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) when proceeding under R.C. 2111.46 to terminate a temporary guardianship.

When divorced parents remarry each other, their earlier custody order becomes ineffective, and a later divorce requires a new custody order under § 3109.04.

Willis v. Willis · filed 1990-12-04

Once the parties were remarried, the prior custody order became ineffective. When the court granted the parties a divorce from their second marriage* the court was required to issue a new custody order pursuant to R.C. 3109.04.

The version of § 3109.04 in effect when the divorce complaint was filed governs the custody decision.

Williams v. Williams · filed 1992-08-14

Since the current R.C. 3109.04 was not in effect at the time the complaint was filed, the former R.C. 3109.04 (hereinafter referred to as “R.C. 3109.04”) must be applied.

Under § 3109.04(K)(2), a parent designated residential parent and legal custodian remains the custodial parent until a custody modification is journalized; retroactive child support alone does not make the custody change retroactive.

McCauley v. McClellan, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2000) · filed 2000-03-30(K)(2)

The judgment modifying appellant's and Lynn's parental rights and responsibilities did not become effective until it was filed on April 22, 1997. Because appellant was designated the residential parent and legal custodian by a court order in effect prior to the incident on March 31, 1997, and prior to the April 22, 1997 Agreed Judgment Entry becoming effective, we find appellant was a parent against whom appellee could maintain an action to recover compensatory damages for Eli's destructive acts pursuant to R.C. 3109.09 .

Section 3109.04 governs allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and does not apply to a county agency’s motion for permanent custody of a child in its temporary custody.

In the Matter of Theaderman, Unpublished Decision (1-18-2002) · filed 2002-01-18

R.C. 3109.04 has no relevance to motions for permanent custody of a child filed by a county department or board that has temporary custody of a child since it concerns allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a change in circumstances when a final divorce decree makes the initial allocation of parental rights after a temporary parenting order; the initial allocation must serve the child’s best interests under subsection (F)(1).

Daniels v. Daniels, 11-08-10 (2-23-2009) · filed 2009-02-23(E)(1)(a)

Furthermore, we find that because the trial court's September 4, 2008 Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce was the initial determination of the parties' parental rights and responsibilities, the trial court was not required to find a "substantial change in circumstances" and accordingly, the trial court was simply required to make an allocation that is in the best interests of the child, based upon the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

An agreed parenting-time entry that de facto designates a custodial parent triggers § 3109.04(E)(1)(a)'s custody-modification standard.

In re A.N. · filed 2011-05-20(E)(1)(a)

Under these circumstances, we find no fault with the trial court’s conclusion that the agreed entry constituted a de facto designation of Wagner as the custodial parent and its holding that it should apply R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not govern an initial custody determination where no prior custody decree exists and the unmarried mother has custody by operation of law.

In re S.S.L.S. · filed 2013-06-28(E)(1)(a)

In other words, where there has been no "prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities," R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is inapplicable to consideration of Father's motion for allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of an existing decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities; before a decree is entered, there is no prior decree to modify.

Welch v. Welch · filed 2012-12-26(E)(1)(a)

First, because the trial court had not entered a decree regarding the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, no “decree” existed at that time to be modified.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not supply the change-in-circumstances and best-interests standard when a juvenile court acts under its neglect jurisdiction to decide custody after temporary custody expires.

In re C.J.L. · filed 2014-04-14(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, we agree that the trial court erred by applying R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and basing its custody determination on whether there had been a change in circumstances and if a change in custody would have been in the children’s best interests.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of parental-rights decrees, not modification of a nonparent legal-custody order for an adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent child.

In re H.H. · filed 2018-06-26(E)(1)(a)

Moreover, the terms of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) indicate that it applies to decrees allocating parental rights and responsibilities, not to orders that award a nonparent legal custody of an adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent child.

Section 3109.04(D) governs requests for shared parenting and does not apply to a dispute over settlement of visitation after shared parenting has been terminated.

In re K.Y. · filed 2020-08-20(D)

To support this argument, Father cites to R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii), which govern pleadings or motions requesting shared parenting. In the case at hand, shared parenting was terminated in 2015, and the issue on appeal in this case concerns settlement of a visitation dispute. Therefore, R.C. 3109.04(D) does not apply.

Section 3109.04 does not apply when the parties have no minor children.

Anderson v. Anderson · filed 2026-06-15

R.C. 3109.04, which concerns the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, is inapplicable to the instant case because Scott and Susan do not have minor children.

Section 3109.04(B) does not restrict reconsideration of custody when relief from the original custody judgment is warranted under Civil Rule 60(B)(4).

Sexton v. Sexton · filed 1978-10-11(B)

To the contrary, the trial court was, in our view, constrained to reconsider the best interest of the children in light of the then existing circumstances uninhibited by the limiting provisions of R. C. 3109.04 (B).

Section 3109.04 does not permit modification of custody solely to punish a parent for leaving the country with the children without permission.

Culberson v. Culberson · filed 1978-12-13

The only evidence heard by the court, and the only reason given by it for the change of permanent custody, was that the wife had left the country without permission. This may or may not have been contemptuous. But it is not sufficient to support a modification of custody; the children of a dissolved marriage are not pawns whose custody may be used for the punishment of a wrongdoer. R. C. 3109.04 did not permit a modification on any such ground.

Section 3109.04(B) requires a change in the child’s or custodian’s circumstances and a finding that modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interests before a prior custody decree may be modified.

Thrasher v. Thrasher · filed 1981-09-02(B)

In order to modify a prior custody decree the trial court must find that a change of circumstances has occurred in either the child or his custodian, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. R.C. 3109.04(B).

Section 3109.04(B) does not permit a change of custody merely because a move would require children to resettle with a new stepparent and enroll in a new school.

Vincenzo v. Vincenzo · filed 1982-03-31(B)

The court’s findings that the children would have to resettle with a new stepparent and enroll in a new school do not meet any one of the three conditions set forth in R.C. 3109.04(B).

Section 3109.04(B) permits modification of a custody decree to allow relocation when a custodial parent’s imminent remarriage to a nonresident is a sufficient change in circumstances and modification serves the child’s best interests.

In Re Marriage of Barber · filed 1983-01-27(B)

The trial court’s first obligation in the modification of custody decrees is the best interests of the child. ... We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding the imminent remarriage of the appellee to a nonresident of the Cleveland area was a sufficient change of ... circumstance to permit the requested modification.

Section 3109.04(B) permits a custody change based on a custodial parent’s immoral conduct only when the conduct has, or probably has, a direct adverse impact on the child’s welfare.

Whaley v. Whaley · filed 1978-12-04(B)

The third standard, that immoral conduct must be shown to have a direct or probable adverse impact on the welfare of the child in order to justify a change of custody, we believe to be the rule in Ohio.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) requires a court to find a change of circumstances satisfying at least one of its listed criteria before modifying a custody decree entered under § 3105.21(B), even in a later, separate divorce action.

Dickrede v. Dickrede · filed 1984-02-22(B)(1)

So construed, it is our opinion that before the trial court could properly proceed to modify the custody of the child of the parties previously decreed to the defendant pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 3105.21(B) it was necessary for it to find the requisite change of circumstances set forth in R.C. 3109.04(B) (1), which change in circumstances shall include at least one of the criteria required by subdivisions (a), (b) or (c) thereof.

Section 3109.04(B) governs a change of custody when custody has already been determined, including when a mother’s custody of a child born out of wedlock was recognized through a paternity judgment and her care of the child.

In Re Yates · filed 1984-06-19(B)

The trial court erred in its application of R.C. 3109.04(A) to the present situation. That section of the statute applies to initial determinations of custody as between the parents. When there has been a previous determination of custody, however, such prior decree can be modified only through the application of R.C. 3109.04(B).

Section 3109.04(B) requires a change in the child’s or custodian’s circumstances before custody may be modified, but that change alone does not require modification.

Pryer v. Pryer · filed 1984-08-17(B)

Although under the provisions of R.C. 3109.04(B) it is necessary that before a divorce court exercises its continuing jurisdiction to modify custody it find that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or custodian “based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree,” such finding, in and of itself, does not demand a modification.

Section 3109.04(B) applies the child’s best-interest standard to modification of an original custody award, including one established through a parent’s consent to guardianship and a divorce decree incorporating that arrangement.

Masitto v. Masitto · filed 1986-02-05(B)

However, once an original custody award has been made, the general rule is that such award will not be modified unless “necessary to serve the best interest of the child.” R.C. 3109.04(B). ... Under all the facts here, we hold that by consenting to the guardianship and divorce decree, the father forfeited his natural rights to custody of his daughter, making the child’s best interest the appropriate test for a change in custody.

Section 3109.04 requires a court modifying child custody without the parents’ agreement to find that the statutory factors justify the change.

Zigmont v. Toto · filed 1988-04-25(B)

By adopting the wife’s entry, the court modified the children’s custody without an agreement and without finding that the statutory factors justified such a change.

Section 3109.04(B)(1)(c) requires a court considering a custody change to assess the environment the prior custodian would provide at the hearing, including relevant evidence arising after a temporary custody change.

Van Hook v. Van Hook · filed 1985-10-30(B)(1)(c)

R.C. 3109.04(B)(1)(c) focuses on the effect of the child’s “present environment” on his development. The trial court’s duty was to consider the environment that the mother would have provided the children if they had been with her rather than with their father at the time of the hearing. ... Evidence relating to the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of the mother and the children after May 22, 1984 is relevant to the determination of the effect of the children’s “present” environment on their physical health or mental, moral, or emotional development should custody be retained in the mother.

Section 3109.04(B)(1)(c) does not permit a court to transfer custody to a county agency to punish a parent for failing to encourage grandparent visitation.

Truitt v. Truitt · filed 1989-10-23(B)(1)(c)

We cannot allow the children to be so used as a vehicle for punishing appellant and so agree with appellant that the trial court lacked discretion under R.C. 3109.04 to transfer custody to children’s services.

A move out of state alone is insufficient to justify changing custody, but its consequences may support a change under the statutory custody criteria.

Price v. Price · filed 1990-02-20(B)(1)

We recognize this principle, that moving out of state is not alone a sufficient change of circumstance to allow a court to change custody of the children to an in-state parent; however, it may be the ramifications of the move which could be of consequence and importance. The criteria for a change of custody are set forth in R.C. 3109.04(B) (1) and (C).

Section 3109.04(B)(1) governs a request to change custody when the mother has raised the child since birth and a prior paternity order implicitly recognized her custody, even though no express custody order was entered.

Knaff v. Gregory · filed 1990-07-16(B)(1)

Nicholas has lived with Gregory since birth and the court below found her to be his primary care giver. Additionally, while there was no express judicial grant of custody to Gregory, the court in the paternity action implicitly recognized her legal custody by ordering Knaff to pay support and awarding visitation. Accordingly, we find that the trial court should have treated this action as a custody modification proceeding and applied the standards outlined in R.C. 3109.04(B) (1).

A parent seeking to modify a custody award after relinquishing preferential custody status must allege a previously unknown change in the child’s or custodian’s circumstances and show that modification serves the child’s best interest.

In Re Whiting · filed 1990-11-02(B)(1)

Thus, on a motion to modify custody appellant must state sufficient facts, which have arisen from the time of the prior custody decree and were unknown at the time of the decree, to show that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian and that a modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(B) (1).

Former § 3109.04(B)(1) requires findings of changed circumstances and the child’s best interest before a juvenile court may modify a custody decree entered in a divorce case.

In re Poling · filed 1992-07-21(B)(1)

These factual determinations fall far short of the necessary findings required to modify custody pursuant to former R.C. 3109.04(B). Because we hold that a juvenile court must, pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(F)(1), exercise its custody jurisdiction in accordance with R.C. 3109.04, the juvenile court's decision in this case must be vacated and this cause remanded to that court for consideration of former R.C. 3109.04.

Former § 3109.04(B)(1) governs modification of a prior divorce custody decree and its requirements apply when a juvenile court changes that custody determination.

In re Poling · filed 1992-07-22(B)(1)

Likewise, under R.C. 2151.23(F)(1), a juvenile court must consider the dictates of R.C. 3109.04 when exercising its custody jurisdiction. ... Former R.C. 3109.04(B) — which is now essentially R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) — controls the modification of a custody determination granted as part of a divorce proceeding.

Former § 3109.04(B)(1) applies only to modification of a prior custody decree; before a final custody decree, the court decides custody under the child’s best interests and may accept, reject, or modify the parties’ agreement.

Frost v. Frost · filed 1992-12-29(B)(1)

However, R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), as formerly enacted, applied only under circumstances where a party sought to modify a prior custody decree. Under the facts of this case, a final order of custody had not as yet been decreed. Thus, even though the parties had entered into the September 12, 1990 agreed entry, the trial court was compelled to make its decision concerning custody according to the “best interests of the child” standard and was within its discretion to accept, reject or modify the parties’ agreement.

Under former § 3109.04(B)(1)(c), endangerment from a custodial parent’s present actions could be shown by reasonably certain future harm; actual present harm was unnecessary.

Gardini v. Moyer · filed 1991-08-21(B)(1)(c)

Consistent with the foregoing approach and a reasonable construction of the statute, we do not read former R.C. 3109.04(B)(1)(c) so narrowly as to require an actual present danger to the child (or children) in his or her present environment in order to establish grounds for a modification of custody. Instead, all that is required is a showing made by the party seeking a modification of custody that some action by the custodial parent presently endangers the child or, with a reasonable degree of certainty, will manifest itself and endanger the child in the future if the child is not removed from his or her present environment immediately.

Section 3109.04 requires consideration of its statutory factors when deciding whether to change custody.

Gillam v. Gillam, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2005) · filed 2005-02-15

Facially, the trial court's decision adequately addresses statutory factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04 , and, absent a transcript, we must presume the regularity of the court's proceedings, and accept that court's resolution of evidentiary conflicts.

Section 3109.04’s custody modification requirements apply only after a final custody allocation; a temporary custody award under a civil protection order does not trigger them.

Tabler v. Myers · filed 2007-11-14

Thus, because appellee’s award of custody arose from a CPO, it was merely a temporary order and was not an initial determination of custody.

A motion to change custody under R.C. 3109.04 requires a change in circumstances and a determination that the change is in the child’s best interests.

In re J.H. · filed 2019-01-03

Specifically, a motion for a modification of visitation, which is governed by R.C. 3109.051, only involves a best interests of the child analysis, while a motion for change in custody, which is governed by R.C. 3109.04, requires that a change in circumstance be demonstrated, as well as a best interests of the child analysis.

Section 3109.04 requires both a change in circumstances and a best interests analysis to modify custody.

In re J.H. · filed 2019-02-28

Specifically, a motion for a modification of visitation, which is governed by R.C. 3109.051, only involves a best interests of the child analysis, while a motion for change in custody, which is governed by R.C. 3109.04, requires that a change in circumstance be demonstrated, as well as a best interests of the child analysis.

In a custody modification proceeding, the court applies the best-interests-of-the-child standard if parental suitability was previously determined or waived; otherwise, it must determine parental suitability.

In Re O.H.W. · filed 2008-02-19(B)(1)

The trial court will then apply either a parental suitability determination (if one has not yet been made) or a best-interests-of-the-child determination (if a parental suitability determination has already been made or waived) in deciding the motion.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before custody may be modified; without that finding, a best-interest finding cannot support modification.

Coates v. Coates, 06ca11 (3-5-2008) · filed 2008-03-05(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) requires that the trial court make three findings before it can modify custody: (1) a change of circumstances has occurred since the last decree, (2) modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child, and (3) the advantages of modification outweigh the potential harm. McClead v. McClead , Washington App. No. 06CA67, 2007-Ohio-4624 , at ¶ 20 . (Emphasis added.) The statute uses the word "and," not the word "or." Therefore, we find that the "best interest" finding that the trial court made after its "no change in circumstances" finding, is now moot as it relates to this assignment of error.

An error in the period used to assess changed circumstances under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is harmless when the claimed changes largely occurred within the period considered and the court independently finds that modification would not serve the children’s best interests.

Bell v. Bell, 2007 Ca 9 (11-30-2007) · filed 2007-11-30(E)(1)(a)

The court's error in confining the period of time relevant to the change of circumstances prong of the test in R.C. 3109.04 (E) is nevertheless harmless, for two reasons. First, the circumstances on which Beard relied to prove the required change took place, in the main, within the period of time the court considered. Second, and more importantly, the court's findings relate to the "best interest" prong of the modification requirement in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1), and those findings were that a modification would not be in the best interests of the two minor children.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities only upon a change in circumstances, a need to serve the child’s best interest, and advantages that outweigh the potential harm.

McClead v. McClead, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2007) · filed 2007-09-05(E)(1)(a)

Thus, a trial court may modify an allocation of parental rights and responsibilities only if the court finds (1) that a change in circumstances has occurred since the last decree, (2) that modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child, and (3) that the advantages of modification outweigh the potential harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of parental-rights decrees, but its change-of-circumstances and best-interest requirements do not govern termination of a temporary guardianship.

In Matter of Adkins, 2006-L-250 (9-7-2007) · filed 2007-09-07(E)(1)(a)

They cite to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio, In re James , 113 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2007-Ohio-2335 , holding that a change of circumstances must be shown when modifying a prior decree concerning parental rights and responsibilities, and that the modification is in the child's best interest, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). ... We disagree. ... When terminating a temporary guardianship, however, it applies the "good cause" standard mandated by R.C. 2111.46 . Id. This distinguishes James , supra, from the case before us.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs changes to a prior parental rights decree; a change in residential parent may be upheld when changed circumstances are conceded and the evidence supports the child’s best interests.

In Re Robinson v. Hatfield, 07ca20 (3-5-2008) · filed 2008-03-05(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) governs the modification of a prior decree allocating parental rights. ... We find that the above factual findings, supports the trial court's finding that it is in the child's best interest that the shared parenting agreement be terminated and Hatfield named the residential parent.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a finding that the child's present environment endangers the child before modifying parental rights; the advantages of modification must outweigh the potential harm.

Jones v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (8-14-2007) · filed 2007-08-14(E)(1)(a)

The statute currently contains no requirement that the trial court find a present danger to the child before modifying custody. Instead, the court need only find that the advantage of modification outweigh the potential harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests before a court may modify an allocation of parental rights.

Sinn v. Cawood, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2007) · filed 2007-08-24(E)(1)(a)

To modify an allocation of parental rights a trial court must determine that the modification is in the best interests of the child and that there has been a change in circumstances. Neel v. Neel (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 24 , 35 ; R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). ... As to appellant's motion for custody, we find after a thorough review of the record that he did not present evidence of a change of circumstances or show that a change of custody would be in the best interests of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) permits a change of residential parent without proof that the current parent harmed the child, if the advantages of changing custody outweigh the harm from the change.

Smith v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2007) · filed 2007-03-23(E)(1)(a)(iii)

Although a trial court starts with the presumption that the current residential parent is acting in the best interests of the child, this presumption is rebuttable by any evidence, not necessarily evidence that the residential parent is harming the child. What the trial court is required to find is that the harm in changing custody is outweighed by the advantages of changing custody. R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(iii).

Section 3109.04 permits a custody change when circumstances have changed, the change serves the child’s best interest, and its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

In Re Smith, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007) · filed 2007-03-02(E)(1)(a)(iii)

The trial court's May 6, 2005 judgment entry evidences that the requirements of R.C. 3109.04 have been met and that the motion for legal custody filed by appellee was properly granted. The trial court precisely stated in its judgment entry that there has been a change of circumstances. Reading the trial court's judgment entry in its entirety, it is apparent that the court considered that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change to the minor child. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(iii).

Section 3109.04(E) does not require a change in circumstances when a court enters an initial permanent custody decree after a temporary custody order; the court determines the children’s best interests.

Gomez v. Gomez, 06 No 330 (3-26-2007) · filed 2007-03-26(E)(1)(a)

Here, there was a temporary custody order and then an original allocation decree. As such, R.C. 3109.04 (E) and its change in circumstances test are inapplicable. Rather, the court's duty was only to determine the children's best interests as in all original allocation cases.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior custody decree only upon a change in specified circumstances arising or discovered after the decree and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest.

In re James · filed 2007-05-30(E)(1)(a)

Until it does, however, a trial court is required to follow the mandate of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and may not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to it at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, his residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared-parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court reallocating parental rights and responsibilities to find that the benefits of changing the child’s environment outweigh the likely harm.

Bauer, Shuler v. Bauer, Unpublished Decision (12-26-2006) · filed 2006-12-26(E)(1)(a)

On the other hand, we agree with Appellant's contention that the trial court failed to make the necessary finding, in accordance with R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), that the harm likely to be caused by a change in environment is outweighed by the benefits of the change of environment. This language is noticeably missing from both the Magistrate's Decision, as well as the trial court's Judgment Entry. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in reallocating parental rights and responsibilities without making this finding.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a shared parenting decree when changed circumstances make modification necessary for the child’s best interests and the advantages of changing the child’s environment outweigh the likely harm.

In Re D.M., Unpublished Decision (11-22-2006) · filed 2006-11-22(E)(1)(a)

In this matter, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that there was change in circumstances, the modification is in child's best interests, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of evidence.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances and an evaluation of the children’s best interests before a prior allocation of parental rights is modified.

Posey v. Posey, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2006) · filed 2006-09-26(E)(1)(a)

In modifying a prior decree with respect to the allocation of parental rights, first there must be a change of circumstances and then an evaluation of the best interests of the children. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). ... We find a change of circumstances not only from the original shared parenting plan, but from appellant's voluntary relinquishment as well. ... Upon review, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in its determination of change of circumstances and best interests of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances and a modification necessary to serve the child’s best interest before the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities may be changed.

Andrew v. Andrews, Unpublished Decision (9-22-2006) · filed 2006-09-22(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, the two prongs of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) that must be satisfied before a modification of the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities is made are that there be a change of circumstances and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances and a finding that modification is in the child’s best interests before parental rights may be reallocated.

In Re Taylor G., Unpublished Decision (4-21-2006) · filed 2006-04-21(E)(1)(a)

To modify an allocation of parent rights a trial court must determine that the modification is in the best interests of the child and that there has been a change in circumstances.

Under § 3109.04, relocation is a substantial factor in modifying shared parenting, and the court must carefully consider its effect on the parties’ previously agreed rights.

In Re J.C., Unpublished Decision (6-8-2006) · filed 2006-06-08(E)(1)(a)(iii)

While the relocation of a child is just one factor to be considered in a custody modification proceeding, it is a substantial factor in any case involving shared parenting. ... The court must carefully and thoughtfully consider the consequences of a relocation and how it affects the previously agreed to rights of the parties.

Section 3109.04 permits modification of parental rights when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interests, and its advantages outweigh the likely harm; a parent’s failure to protect and supervise the child can support such a change.

Rausch v. Rausch, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2006) · filed 2006-07-27(E)(1)(a)

A court may grant a modification of parental rights if 1) there was a change in circumstances since the parties filed the shared parenting plan with the court; 2) a modification was deemed to be in the best interests of the parties' children; and 3) the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment was outweighed by the advantages of the change to the children. ... Given this evidence, we cannot say that the court erred in finding that appellant did not protect and supervise the minor child properly, thus leading to a modification of the shared parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior custody allocation when the required statutory findings support a change that serves the child’s best interests.

Smith v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005) · filed 2005-12-23(E)(1)(a)

The trial court made all the necessary statutory findings in accordance with R.C. § 3109.04 . Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that it would be in the best interest of the parties' minor children to permanently reside with their biological father.

A paternity-based child-support order can imply an existing custody order, requiring a later custody request to meet the change-of-circumstances test for modification, subject to exceptions for a short interval or a prior father-child relationship.

In Re Johnson · filed 2006-03-06(E)(1)(a)

Here, although there was no express custody or visitation order, there was an implied order by virtue of the fact that appellee had been ordered to pay child support, obviously as a result of a determination of paternity. Based upon these facts, the trial court should have applied the change-of-circumstances test, rather than the best-interest-of-the-child test.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) permits a custody modification when changed circumstances make it necessary for the child’s best interest and the advantages of changing the child’s environment outweigh the likely harm.

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

In addition to determining that a change of circumstances has occurred, the trial court considered and comprehensively detailed the applicable R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) statutory factors governing best interest. Thus, the trial court's decision was based on findings which demonstrated that the best interest of the minor children would be served by the change of custody and that the harm of the change of environment was outweighed by the benefits.

Section 3109.04 requires a party seeking to modify custody to first demonstrate a change in circumstances.

Bryan v. Bryan · filed 2005-06-03(E)(1)(a)

A party seeking to modify custody under R.C. 3109.04 must initially demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) does not require a custody court to use the words “harm” or “advantage” if its decision clearly analyzes the harm and advantages of changing the child’s environment.

O'Neil v. Presler, Unpublished Decision (1-13-2005) · filed 2005-01-13(E)(1)(a)(iii)

While it is true that the trial court did not parrot the words "harm", or "advantage", it is clear the court did make this kind of analysis.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court modifying a prior allocation of parental rights to first find a change in circumstances, then determine the child’s best interests, and then satisfy one of the listed conditions.

Loudermilk v. Lynch, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004) · filed 2004-09-30(E)(1)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), a trial court may not modify its prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities until it conducts a three-step inquiry. First, there must be a change in circumstances of the child or the residential parent. Second, the change in custody must be needed to serve the best interest of the child. Third, one of the three conditions listed in subsections (i) — (iii) must be satisfied.

Section 3109.04(B) permits a parent to seek modification of parental rights and responsibilities, with that parent bearing the burden of proving the statutory considerations for modification; any financial benefit is collateral.

Bond v. Bond, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2004) · filed 2004-12-23(B)

Therefore, Charles may ask the court to modify its prior decree in order to limit Cynthia's exercise of her primary right in that connection. The fact that Charles' pecuniary interests are implicated can't be denied, but whether he benefits is a matter collateral to the considerations for modification imposed by R.C. 3109.04 (B), which it would be Charles' burden to prove.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests, and one of the listed statutory conditions before parental rights may be reallocated.

Gossard v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2005) · filed 2005-05-09(E)(1)(a)

Before a court can make such a modification, the trial court must find, "based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree," that (1) a change in circumstances has occurred, (2) a change in the parental rights and responsibilities is in the best interests of the child, and (3) one of the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(i) — (iii) applies.

Section 3109.04(E) permits modification of a parental-rights decree only upon a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests, and a finding that its advantages to the child outweigh any harm.

Myers v. Morgan, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2005) · filed 2005-05-11(E)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) provides that a court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities unless it finds (1) that a change in circumstances has occurred, (2) that the modification would be in the child's best interests given the change, and (3) that any harm from such a change would be outweighed by the advantages to the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of an order allocating parental rights only upon a change in circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child's best interest.

Franklin-Rengan v. Rengan, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2005) · filed 2005-05-27(E)(1)(a)

R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) provides that a court may not modify a prior order allocating parental rights and responsibilities unless it finds that a change in circumstances of the child or residential parent has occurred and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. ... We hold that it is in the best interests of Rama and Krishna to maintain the visitation schedule as it currently exists.

Section 3109.04(E) does not govern an initial allocation of parental rights after the previous custody allocation has been vacated under Civ.R. 60(B).

Day v. Day, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2005) · filed 2005-11-14(E)

Once the portion of the previous divorce decree governing the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities had been vacated by the trial court, the court was required to make an initial determination of parental rights. Thus, this was not a modification of parental rights and R.C. 3109.04 (E) does not apply.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) limits modification decisions to facts arising after the prior decree or unknown to the court when it was entered, so testimony about earlier known conduct may be disregarded.

Andrachik v. Ripepi, Unpublished Decision (12-21-2005) · filed 2005-12-21(E)(1)(a)

Because this testimony did not concern "facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree," we find no abuse of discretion in the court's failure to consider this testimony.

A change in circumstances alone does not require modification of parental rights; the court must also find that modification serves the child’s best interest and that one of the specified statutory conditions applies.

In Re Freeman-Harris, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2005) · filed 2005-12-22(E)(1)(a)

Contrary to Appellant's assertions, the applicable statute requires more than a finding that a change in circumstances exists. A court must not only make one of the three specified findings under R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), but the court must also conclude that modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) requires a court modifying a shared parenting decree to consider all relevant best-interest factors and make findings supporting a change in residential parent and legal custodian.

Riley v. Riley, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004) · filed 2004-09-30(F)(1)

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it modified the shared parenting decree and reallocated residential parent status and legal custody to appellee without making findings, in consideration of all relevant statutory factors, that the reallocation was in the best interest of the child and without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) applies to modification of an existing custody decree; when no prior decree exists, custody is determined under the best interests standard in section 3109.04(B)(1).

In the Matter of Knight, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003) · filed 2003-12-31(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) governs the modification of an existing decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities. ... Under such circumstances, the trial court shall not use the formula set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a); alternatively, the court must determine custody based on the best interests of the child pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a trial court to recite each statutory factor in a custody modification judgment when no party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law and the record shows the court considered the statutory procedure.

Dadosky v. Dadosky, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2003) · filed 2003-12-22(E)(1)(a)

While we agree with appellant that the trial court's journal entry does not explicitly state that the court found that the benefits of the change outweighed the harm, we disagree that the court's failure to specifically mention this factor in its judgment entry requires us to reverse its decision. We note that the hearing transcript reveals that the trial court was fully aware of the pertinent statutory procedure and that the court considered appropriate factors. In the absence of a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court was not required to detail its findings and recite each statutory factor.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a custody modification to rest on changed circumstances, the child’s best interest, and one of the specified conditions for changing the residential parent.

Engelmann v. Engelmann, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2004) · filed 2004-03-29(E)(1)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 , before a trial court may modify a prior child custody decree, the party requesting the modification must demonstrate: (1) a change in circumstances; (2) that the modification is in the best interest of the child; and, (3) one of the conditions set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(i-iii).

Section 3109.04(E)(1) requires a trial court modifying an existing custody decree to expressly base its decision on findings of changed circumstances, the child’s best interests, and benefits outweighing harm, even if no party requests findings under Civ.R. 52.

Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, Unpublished Decision (4-23-2004) · filed 2004-04-23(E)(1)

But we hold that to do so the court must render a decision that is expressly based on the requisite findings contained in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a showing of changed circumstances or the children’s best interests when a parent seeks clarification of a parenting-time issue the decree did not address.

Lassiter v. Lassiter, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2003) · filed 2003-05-09(E)(1)(a)

Even though appellant moved for a "modification" of the terms of the decree regarding parenting time, he was actually seeking a clarification regarding the "right of first refusal," an issue that was not addressed in the decree. Consequently, he did not have the burden to make the showings required by R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) places the burden of proving the requirements for modifying a shared parenting plan on the party seeking the modification.

Willoughby v. Masseria, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2003) · filed 2003-05-09(E)(1)(a)

Because appellant was seeking to modify the current living arrangement (where the child was living in North Carolina), he was charged with the burden of demonstrating the elements of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a showing of changed circumstances to modify an existing custody award, even when a parent seeks custody from a nonparent.

Bragg v. Hatfield · filed 2003-03-19(E)(1)(a)

Once an original custody award has been made, the general rule is that the award will not be modified unless, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04, a change of circumstances is demonstrated. ... In other words, if an original custody award has already been made, the party seeking to modify that award must show a change in circumstances even if the noncustodial party is a parent and the custodial party is a nonparent.