Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a custody decree when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interest, and its benefits outweigh the harm from changing the child’s environment.

Dyslin v. Marks, Unpublished Decision (4-7-2003) · filed 2003-04-07(E)(1)(a)

A trial court essentially applies a three-part test in determining whether a modification of child custody is appropriate. The test is: 1) whether there has been a change in circumstances; 2) whether a modification is in the best interest of the child; and 3) whether the harm resulting from the change will be outweighed by the benefits.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in the child’s circumstances before a court may modify a prior custody determination.

Leonard v. Yenser, Unpublished Decision (8-11-2003) · filed 2003-08-11(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) provides that a trial court must not modify a prior custody determination unless it finds that following: 1) there has been a change in circumstances of the child; 2) a modification would be in the best interest of the child; and 3) the harm that would result from the change in outweighed by the benefits that will result from the change.

A court may modify a prior allocation of parental rights when a change in circumstances has occurred and the modification serves the child's best interests; substantial competent, credible evidence can support those findings.

Harley v. Harley, Unpublished Decision (1-15-2003) · filed 2003-01-15(E)(1)(a)

In sum, we find that the record contains a substantial amount of competent and credible evidence supporting the trial court's determination that a change in circumstances occurred and that Carolyn's best interests will be served by placing her in Mr. Harley's custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and a finding that its advantages outweigh the likely harm before a court modifies a parental-rights decree.

In Re L.S. · filed 2003-04-24(E)(1)(a)

Thus, as pertains to the facts of this case, the trial court was required to undergo a threefold analysis, namely, determining whether there was competent credible evidence to support that (1) a change in circumstances has occurred since the last decree, (2) the modification was necessary to serve the best interest of the child, and (3) the harm likely to be caused by the modification is outweighed by the advantages of modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) generally guides modification of a prior allocation of parental rights through a change in circumstances, the child’s best interests, and whether the benefits outweigh any harm.

Thurner v. Thurner, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2002) · filed 2002-08-28(E)(1)(a)

Under R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), three factors generally guide a trial court's determination whether to modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities: (1) whether there has been a change in circumstances; (2) whether a modification is in the child's best interests; and (3) whether the benefits resulting from the change will outweigh any harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior allocation of parental rights only upon a change of circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and a finding that its advantages outweigh likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Dunlop v. Dunlop, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2002) · filed 2002-10-25(E)(1)(a)

Based upon this statute, a trial court can modify parental rights and responsibilities if it finds that there has been a change of circumstances, that the modification is in the best interest of the child, and that any harm likely to result from a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a party seeking to modify a custody decree to show both a change of circumstances and that the modification is in the child's best interest.

Hutchison v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (9-4-2002) · filed 2002-09-04(E)(1)(a)

Consequently, if, as Mr. Hutchison asserts, Ms. Henderson was the de facto residential parent and he was the party requesting modification, Mr. Hutchison would not only have to demonstrate that there was a change of circumstances but, also, that the modification was in the best interests of Tre.

A custody modification need not be reversed for lack of a specific finding under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) when the record shows that the trial court applied the statutory criteria.

Douglass-Makni v. Makni, Unpublished Decision (9-24-2002) · filed 2002-09-24(E)(1)(a)

However, we have previously determined that the failure to make a specific R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) finding does not constitute reversible error where the record indicates that the trial court properly applied the statutory criteria. Wilson v. Wilson (Jan. 25, 1994), Lawrence App. No. 93CA9. The record before us indicates that the trial court did so.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) applies the best-interest-of-the-child standard to a natural parent’s petition to modify a legal custody award after the parent has received an unsuitability determination at the original custody hearing.

Hockstok v. Hockstok · filed 2002-12-27(B)(1)

Therefore our holding in this case does not change the well-established rule, codified in R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), that after the legal custody determination is made, the best-interest-of-the-child standard should be used for any custody modification petitions filed by a natural parent. A parent should be given only one unsuitability determination, which should come at the time of the legal custody hearing.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) requires the court to weigh the harm of changing a child’s environment against its advantages; an express finding is unnecessary when competent evidence supports the court’s implicit application of that test.

Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre · filed 1994-04-06(E)(1)(a)(iii)

More specifically, when reviewing the decision of the trial court, a reviewing court may make assumptions regarding the trial court’s consideration of evidence and application of relevant statute requirements. Whitmer v. Darrow (Dec. 26, 1985), Summit App. No. 12130, unreported, 1985 WL 4735. The trial court analyzed evidence, including testimony of the appellee, the home investigation, and the school proficiency examinations, which contains sufficient competent evidence to find that the harm to the children, if they stay with the appellant, is outweighed by the advantages of giving custody to the appellee. Thus, it can be concluded that the trial court followed the dictates of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and appellant’s fifth, sixth, and seventh assignments of error are not well taken.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before custody may be modified, but does not require the change to be labeled “substantial.”

Davis v. Flickinger · filed 1997-02-12(E)(1)(a)

However, R.C. 3109.04 requires only a finding of a “change in circumstances” before a trial court can determine the best interest of the child in considering a change of custody. Nowhere in this statute does the word “substantial” appear.

A custody modification satisfies § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) when the factual determinations support changed circumstances, the child’s best interests, and benefits from the change outweighing its likely harm, even without an express citation to the section or its statutory language.

In Re Kennedy · filed 1994-04-19(E)(1)(a)

Despite the lack of reference to R.C. 3109.04 and the absence of specific statutory language, the referee’s report and recommendations clearly included language which supported the requirements of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). ... The report contained sufficient facts to find that a change in circumstances had occurred, the modification would be in the best interests of the child, and the harm of changing the child’s environment is outweighed by the benefits of changing the environment.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires evidence of changed circumstances and the child’s best interest before a court may modify a custody decree.

Waggoner v. Waggoner · filed 1996-05-08(E)(1)(a)

Pursuant to the statute, the court cannot order modification without evidence that a change in circumstances has occurred and that the child’s best interest is served by the modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a parent seeking to terminate a permanent guardianship that transferred custody to show a change in the child’s or guardian’s circumstances and that modification serves the child’s best interests.

In Re Guardianship of Sanders · filed 1997-03-07(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, on her application to terminate the guardianship, which would, in effect, result in a change of Elizabeth’s custody, Mrs. Jump was required to show that a change had occurred in either Elizabeth’s or Mrs. Sanders’s circumstances and that a modification was necessary to serve Elizabeth’s best interests.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a custody modification in the child’s best interests, and advantages of the change that outweigh the harm from changing living arrangements.

Matter of Neale, Unpublished Decision (2-6-1998) · filed 1998-02-06(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) sets forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a motion to modify custody should be granted, under which the moving party must establish: (1) a change of circumstances has occurred since the last custody order; (2) a modification of custody would serve the best interests of the child; and (3) the harm caused by the change in living arrangements is outweighed by the advantages of the proposed modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1) requires a change in circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest before a court modifies a custody decree to implement shared parenting.

Neel v. Neel · filed 1996-07-25(E)(1)

Thus, in order to modify a decree to implement a shared-parenting plan, the trial court is required to determine that such a modification is in the best interest of the child and that there has been a change in circumstances.

An order restricting parents’ overnight romantic guests while children are present modifies parental responsibilities and requires the findings prescribed by § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and (F)(1).

Dilworth v. Dilworth · filed 1996-11-08(E)(1)(a), (F)(1)

We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that its order forbidding the overnight stay of the Dilworths’ romantic friends did not modify their existing parental responsibilities. ... Thus, by issuing its order, the trial court in effect modified the parents’ responsibilities without complying with the mandatory provisions of R.C. 3109.04. ... Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for the trial court to render a decision that complies with R.C. 3109.04 and, in particular, makes the findings required by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and (F)(1).

A parent seeking child support or a change in parental rights and responsibilities must comply with the section’s modification requirements.

McKinney v. McKinney, Unpublished Decision (9-8-1997) · filed 1997-09-08(E)

If Gary McKinney desires to be paid child support and/or change his parental rights and responsibilities, he must comply with the requirements of R.C. 3109.04 (E).

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

Fitz v. Fitz, Unpublished Decision (4-27-1998) · filed 1998-04-27(E)(1)(a)

In addition, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), a trial court "shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds 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 modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child." ... Not only is the record devoid of the UCCJA affidavit, but the trial court's order does not include any discussion of the R.C. 3109.04 mandates.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a change in custody when circumstances have changed since the original decree and the change serves the children's best interests.

Stasek v. Stasek, Unpublished Decision (2-25-1999) · filed 1999-02-25(E)(1)(a)

Our review of the record reveals that a change in circumstances has occurred since the time of the original decree, and the evidence adduced at the hearing before the magistrate supports the determination that a change in custody is in the best interests of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs a juvenile court’s decision on changing custody when an existing domestic relations custody decree covers a dependent, neglected, or abused child.

Matter of Jessica P., Unpublished Decision (5-1-1998) · filed 1998-05-01(E)(1)(a)

However, a juvenile court must apply the standards of R.C. 3109.04 when it exercises jurisdiction over a dependent, neglected, or abused child and an existing custody decree from a domestic relations court exists.

A court may retain the current custodian when the evidence does not support a change in circumstances or show that changing custody serves the children’s best interests and outweighs the harm of changing their environment.

Musson v. Musson, Unpublished Decision (6-10-1998) · filed 1998-06-10(E)(1)(a)

Having reviewed the record, we are unable to say that the trial court committed any error. The record demonstrates that the court considered all factors which would support a change in circumstances. Further, competent and credible evidence was presented to support the trial court's decision that a change in custody was not in the best interests of the children or that the harm of a change of environment outweighed the benefits of such a change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court changing custody to find that the change serves the child’s best interest and that its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Smith v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (12-14-1998) · filed 1998-12-14(E)(1)(a)

In order to effect a change of custody, it was incumbent upon the trial court to find, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 , that it was in Amanda's best interest to change custody and that the advantages of a change of environment outweighed the harm likely to be caused thereby.

Section 3109.04(E) permits a custody modification only when changed circumstances and the child’s best interests support it and the benefits outweigh the harm from the change.

Bunten v. Bunten, Unpublished Decision (12-16-1998) · filed 1998-12-16(E)

When deciding whether a modification of custody is appropriate, the court must determine three things. (1) Has there been a change in circumstances? (2) Is this modification in the best interest of the child? (3) Will the harm that will result from the change be outweighed by the benefits that will result from the change? ... Unless the record supports an affirmative answer to each of these questions, the modification is not appropriate under R.C. 3109.04 (E) and is contrary to law.

A trial court has discretion to change custody in the child’s best interest when circumstances have changed, and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Keaton v. Young, Unpublished Decision (1-25-1999) · filed 1999-01-25

In light of the holding of the Ohio Supreme Court in Davis v. Flickinger, supra, we hold that the assignment of error is not well taken and is overruled because the court did not abuse its discretion when ordering the change of custody in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a custody decree only when circumstances have changed, the change serves the children's best interests, and its advantages outweigh its harm.

Franklin v. Franklin, Unpublished Decision (4-28-1999) · filed 1999-04-28(E)(1)(a)

In the case sub judice, the trial court could not have modified its prior custody decree unless it found (1) that a change occurred in the circumstance of the children or appellee, the residential parent, (2) that the residential parent designation needed to be modified in order to serve the children's best interests, and (3) that the advantages from the custody change would outweigh any harm from such a change. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court modifying custody to find a previously unknown change in circumstances, that modification serves the child’s best interests, and that its benefit outweighs the harm from changing the child’s environment; bare findings without supporting facts are insufficient.

Matter of Surdel, Unpublished Decision (5-12-1999) · filed 1999-05-12(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) requires that before a court modifies a current custody order, it must find changes in the circumstances of the child, the custodial parent, or both, that were unknown to it at the time of the original custody order. The court must also find that modification of custody is "necessary to serve the best interests of the child." The court then must weigh the harm likely to be caused by the change of environment, and find that the benefit to the child outweighs the harm of such a change. The court below failed to make such a statutory showing.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) allows modification of parental rights only when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child's best interest, and the advantages of changing the child's environment outweigh the likely harm.

Allgood v. Allgood, Unpublished Decision (10-25-1999) · filed 1999-10-25(E)(1)(a)(iii)

Therefore, the trial court may modify parental rights and responsibilities only if it finds that: (1) there has been a change of circumstances, (2) a modification is in the best interest of the child, and (3) any harm likely to result from a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior parental-rights decree after a change in circumstances only if modification serves the child’s best interest and one of three statutory conditions exists.

Morris v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (12-1-1999) · filed 1999-12-01(E)(1)(a)

Once a court finds that there has been a change in circumstances of the residential parent, the court may modify the existing decree only if it finds that the modification is in the best interest of the child and that one of the three enumerated circumstances exists in the family.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a party seeking to modify a custody decree to show a change in circumstances, that modification serves the child’s best interest, and that one of the three specified conditions applies.

Rowe v. Rowe, Unpublished Decision (12-17-1999) · filed 1999-12-17(E)(1)(a)

In order for a trial court to modify a prior child custody decree, therefore, the party requesting the modification must demonstrate the following: (1) a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, his residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree; (2) the requested modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child; and (3) one of the three scenarios described in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(i) through (iii) is applicable.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of parental rights and responsibilities when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interest, and the advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Sheard v. Sheard, Unpublished Decision (12-20-1999) · filed 1999-12-20(E)(1)(a)

Applying the statute, the trial court may modify parental rights and responsibilities if it finds that: (1) there has been a change of circumstances, (2) modification is in the best interest of the children, and (3) any harm likely to result from a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires the court to weigh the harm and advantages of a proposed custody change, rather than those of an earlier parental relocation.

Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh · filed 2000-02-11(E)(1)(a)

Appellant’s original motion sought a change in custody of the children. That change in custody would require a change in environment from the children residing primarily with appellee in Columbus to the children residing primarily with appellant in Youngstown. This was the change in environment, not appellee’s relocation, that the trial court was required to, and in fact did, analyze.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) allows modification of custody only when circumstances change for the child or current custodian and the modification serves the child’s best interests.

Comstock v. Comstock, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2000) · filed 2000-03-01(E)(1)(a)

Under the standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), the court shall not modify a custody arrangement unless it finds (1) that a change of circumstances has occurred with respect to either the child or the party who has custody of the child, and (2) that the modification is in the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances before a court may consider the child’s best interest in modifying residential custody, and one of the three listed conditions must also be met.

Springer v. Booth, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2000) · filed 2000-03-17(E)(1)(a)

Accordingly, under the terms of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), the court must conduct a three step inquiry in determining whether a change in residential custody should be made. First, there must be a change in the circumstances of the child or his residential parent, or in the case of a shared parenting order, either parent. Second, the change in custody must be needed to serve the best interest of the child. Finally, one of the three conditions listed in subsections (i)-(iii) must be satisfied.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a custody modification only when circumstances have changed, the modification serves the child’s best interest, and at least one of its three alternative conditions is met.

Sanders v. Sanders, Unpublished Decision (4-14-2000) · filed 2000-04-14(E)(1)(a)

The statute provides that, before modifying parental rights and responsibilities, the trial court must find that there has been a change of circumstances, that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the children, and one of the following: the residential parent agrees to the change; the children have been integrated into the family of the person seeking to become the residential parent with the consent of the residential parent, or; the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change to the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances, a best interest determination, and satisfaction of one of three specified conditions before residential custody may be changed.

In the Matter of Steven M. v. Robin D., Unpublished Decision (5-12-2000) · filed 2000-05-12(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) provides that a court must conduct a three step inquiry in determining whether a change in residential custody should be made. First, there must be a change in the circumstances of the child or his residential parent, or in the case of a shared parenting order, either parent. Second, the change in custody must be needed to serve the best interest of the child. Finally, one of the three conditions listed in subsections (i) to (iii) must be satisfied.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior custody decree only when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interests, and its advantages outweigh the harm from changing the child’s environment.

Martin v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2000) · filed 2000-06-30(E)(1)(a)

Thus, three elements must have existed in order for the trial court to have properly modified the existing decree allocating parental rights: (1) there must be an initial threshold showing of a change in circumstances; (2) if circumstances have changed, the modification of custody must be in the children's best interests; and, (3) any harm to the children from a modification of custody must be outweighed by the advantages of such a modification.

Section 3109.04 requires the court to consider its factors when modifying a custody decree.

McHenry v. McHenry, Unpublished Decision (12-16-1999) · filed 1999-12-16

In modification of a custody decree, the court must consider the factors in R.C. 3109.04 .

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court may modify a prior custody decree; the child’s best interest alone does not suffice.

In Re Kilkenny, Unpublished Decision (2-11-2000) · filed 2000-02-11(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E) (1) (a), recited above, requires that a finding that a change of circumstances has occurred before that custody determination may be modified. A court cannot look only to the best interest of the child or children in making that modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) generally requires changed circumstances, the child’s best interests, and benefits outweighing likely harm before custody is modified.

Smith v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (7-26-2000) · filed 2000-07-26(E)(1)(a)

Thus, in determining whether to modify custody, three factors generally guide a trial court's decision: (1) whether there has been a change in circumstances; (2) whether a modification is in the child's best interests; and (3) whether the benefits resulting form the change will outweigh any harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify custody; requiring a "substantial change" imposes a higher burden than the statute allows.

Pierson v. Porter, Unpublished Decision (7-31-2000) · filed 2000-07-31(E)(1)(a)

Reviewing these decisions, which contain some serious concerns about Mary's parenting, we cannot say that the trial court's finding that there has been no "substantial change in circumstances" is merely a mistake in nomenclature rather than the application of a higher burden of proof than is required by R.C. 3109.04 . We find that the trial court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect test to determine whether appellant's motion to modify custody should be granted.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a contested custody modification when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interest, and its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Kubin v. Kubin · filed 2000-09-18(E)(1)(a)

To summarize this Revised Code section as applicable herein, in a case where a residential parent does not agree to a change of custody, a trial court may modify parental rights and responsibilities if it finds that (1) there has been a change of circumstances, (2) modification is in the best interest of the child, and (3) any harm likely to result from a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and benefits that outweigh the harm before a prior custody arrangement may be modified.

Brodman v. Yeater, Unpublished Decision (10-16-2000) · filed 2000-10-16(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) governs a modification of an existing custody arrangement. Under the standard set forth in the statute, the trial court shall not modify a prior custody arrangement unless it finds that: (1) there has there been a change in circumstances with respect to either the child or the party who has custody of the child, (2) the modification is in the best interest of the child, and (3) the harm resulting from the change will be outweighed by the benefits.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a sufficient change in circumstances before a court may modify an existing custody arrangement, and the trial court has discretion to assess that change.

Meade v. Meade, Unpublished Decision (10-16-2000) · filed 2000-10-16(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) governs a modification of an existing custody arrangement. ... As the trial court had the opportunity to observe the various witnesses and weigh the evidence surrounding the issues, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that there was not a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification in custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court modifying a prior custody decree to find changed circumstances and that the modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interest.

Annette S. v. Anthony T., Unpublished Decision (11-9-2000) · filed 2000-11-09(E)(1)(a)

The law requires a finding that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his residential parent, as well as a finding that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires findings of changed circumstances, the child’s best interest, and advantages outweighing the harm before a court modifies a custody decree.

Adorante v. Wright, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2001) · filed 2001-03-14(E)(1)(a)

The juvenile court must make three required findings according to R.C. § 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), before it can modify a prior custody decree: "(1) there must be an initial threshold showing of a change in circumstances; (2) if circumstances have changed, the modification of custody must be in the children's best interest; and (3) any harm to the children from a modification of the plan must be outweighed by the advantages of such a modification."

Section 3109.04 gives trial courts broad discretion to determine whether changed circumstances and the children’s best interests justify modifying parental rights.

Klayer v. Klayer, Unpublished Decision (8-9-2000) · filed 2000-08-09(E)

In determining whether the requirements for a modification of the allocation of parental rights under R.C. 3109.04 have been met, the trial court is given wide latitude to decide whether there has been a change in circumstances affecting the children and whether it would be in the best interests of the children to make such a modification.

Section 3109.04(E) requires modifications of parental rights or obligations to rest on facts in evidence; an uncontested affidavit alone cannot support a modification.

Keating v. Keating, Unpublished Decision (1-24-2001) · filed 2001-01-24(E)

Indeed, modification of such rights or obligations can only be made on the basis of "facts" in evidence. R.C. 3109.04 (E).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court modifying a parental-rights decree to address the listed grounds for modification in its findings and conclusions when a party requests them under Civ.R. 52.

Smith v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2001) · filed 2001-02-07(E)(1)(a)

While the statement of facts in the trial court's opinion may be sufficient to support conclusions that one of the factors in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(i)-(iii) was met, the trial court failed to set forth its conclusions of law in regard to these factors or, in fact, mention the statutory criteria. ... Hence, while a general judgment may be sufficient in most instances, we cannot find it so when a party has moved for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Civ.R. 52 and the trial court has failed to indicate its legal conclusion regarding one of the factors required or indicate that it has considered those factors.

Section 3109.04 permits modification of parental rights and responsibilities only upon a change of circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and a finding that the advantages of the change outweigh its likely harm.

Sallee v. Sallee · filed 2001-04-23(E)(1)(a)(iii)

Therefore, the trial court may modify parental rights and responsibilities only if it finds that (1) there has been a change of circumstances, (2) a modification is in the best interest of the child, and (3) any harm likely to result from a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances, a custody change serving the child’s best interest, and advantages of the new environment that outweigh its likely harm before residential custody may be modified.

Charles R. v. Marianne R., Unpublished Decision (6-15-2001) · filed 2001-06-15(E)(1)(a)

Thus, the juvenile court was required to engage in a three step analysis in determining whether a change in residential custody should be made. First, it was required to find a change in the circumstances of Grace and Andrew or the circumstances of Marianne. Second, the court had to decide that the change of custody was needed to serve the best interest of Grace and Andrew. Finally, the benefits of the change in environment had to outweigh the likelihood of harm to Grace and Andrew due to the change in environment.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a finding of changed circumstances before a court may modify a prior custody order.

In the Matter of Tuepker, Unpublished Decision (9-24-2001) · filed 2001-09-24(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) clearly requires a finding of a change of circumstances in order to modify a prior custody order.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) permits a custody modification without an express finding on the advantages and disadvantages of the change when the court adequately addresses the relevant factors and its conclusion is implicit in the judgment.

Putnam v. Putnam, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2001) · filed 2001-05-17(E)(1)(a)(iii)

Although the court failed to make a specific finding with regard to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(iii), we cannot say that this constituted an abuse of discretion, since the relevant factors were adequately addressed in the opinion. The trial court's conclusion is implicit in its judgment.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require express findings that the advantages of a custody change outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Boone v. Kaser, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2001) · filed 2001-08-28(E)(1)(a)

Although this determination is somewhat general, the statute does not require express findings. The entry demonstrates the trial court did consider this issue.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a parental rights decree only when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interest, and one of the listed conditions is met.

Scarbrough v. Scarbrough, Unpublished Decision (7-18-2001) · filed 2001-07-18(E)(1)(a)

Thus, a modification of a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities is not warranted absent: (1) a change in circumstances; (2) the best interest of the child weighing in favor of such modification; 2 and (3) one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) being present.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) places the burden of proof on the party seeking to modify a shared-parenting plan.

Johnson-Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, Unpublished Decision (7-26-2001) · filed 2001-07-26(E)(1)(a)

By its terms, R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) also places the burden of proof upon the party wishing to modify the shared-parenting plan.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a custody decree when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interest, and its benefits outweigh the harm from changing the child’s environment.

Kelly v. Frank, Unpublished Decision (10-9-2001) · filed 2001-10-09(E)(1)(a)

A trial court essentially applies a three-part test in determining whether a modification of child custody is appropriate. The test is: 1) whether there has been a change in circumstances; 2) whether a modification is in the best interest of the child; and 3) whether the harm resulting from the change will be outweighed by the benefits.

Section 3109.04(E)(1) permits modification of parental rights and responsibilities if, among other requirements, the change is in the child's best interest.

Kluckman v. Kelly, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2001) · filed 2001-12-19(E)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1), a trial court may modify a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities if it finds, among other things, that the modification is in the child's best interest. ... Thus, there was competent, credible evidence supporting the conclusion that the child should spend more time with her mother to repair their relationship.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of parental-rights decrees in domestic relations cases and does not apply to modification of a juvenile court custody order for a dependent child.

In Re Matter of Crook, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2001) · filed 2001-11-21(E)(1)(a)

Appellant's assertion that R.C. 3109.04 governs the circumstances presented in this case lacks merit. R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), which governs modifications of decrees awarding parental rights and responsibilities in domestic relations cases, is inapplicable in the instant juvenile court case.

A significant change in the parties’ circumstances since the original decree can support modification of a custody order when the change serves the children’s best interests.

In the Matter of West, Unpublished Decision (12-24-2001) · filed 2001-12-24(E)(1)(a)

First of all, both parties have disregarded and violated the original decree so that it needed to be modified. Second, circumstances concerning the parties have changed to a significant degree since the original decree was issued. Third, evidence was presented that could have led the trial court to conclude that it was in the children's best interest to remain in the custody of the appellee and that the appellant should receive the standard orders of visitation.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires compliance with the modification standard only after a final allocation of parental rights and responsibilities; a temporary custody order does not trigger that standard.

Boling v. Valecko, Unpublished Decision (02-06-2002) · filed 2002-02-06(E)(1)(a)

It is only after the final judgment allocating parental rights and responsibilities that the court must comply with the statutory requirements for modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a custody modification to serve the child’s best interests; if that requirement fails, the court need not decide whether the benefits of a change outweigh its harm.

Bailey v. Bailey, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2002) · filed 2002-03-14(E)(1)(a)

Moreover, because a change in custody requires the modification to be in the child's best interests, we decline to address whether the harm resulting from a change would be outweighed by the benefits that would result from a change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a custody modification based on changed circumstances when it serves the child’s best interests and the advantages of a changed environment outweigh the likely harm.

Victor v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (4-18-2002) · filed 2002-04-18(E)(1)(a)

The magistrate's decision in this matter was thorough, well reasoned, fully comported with the mandate of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), and was supported by competent and credible evidence. Therefore, we conclude that there is no merit to appellant's contention in her second assignment of error that the trial court erred in adopting that decision.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) authorizes a court to change custody on a party’s motion for a change of custody.

Copeland v. Copeland III, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2001) · filed 2001-12-10(E)(1)(a)

Although the court did not have the power to change custody pursuant to R.C. 3109.051 (G)(1) or pursuant to Warren County Local Rule 1.09, it did have authority to do so pursuant to appellee's motion for change of custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a party seeking to modify a custody decree to show changed circumstances, that modification serves the child’s best interest, and one of the listed statutory conditions.

In Re Marriage of Faulhaber, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2002) · filed 2002-06-28(E)(1)(a)

Pursuant to the statute, before a trial court may modify a prior child custody decree, the party requesting the modification must demonstrate: (1) a change in circumstances; (2) 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-iiii).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires all three conditions for modifying a prior custody decree, so a finding that modification is not in the children's best interest defeats the request even if circumstances changed.

Thomas v. Moothart, Unpublished Decision (7-15-2003) · filed 2003-07-15(E)(1)(a)

Since all three elements of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) must be satisfied in order to modify a prior custody decree, it follows, therefore, that even if Ms. Thomas had been successful in showing a change in circumstance, she would have failed the three-part test in 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) because the court found that it was not in the best interest of the children to modify the prior custody agreements.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires the party seeking to modify a prior custody decree to show a change in circumstances, that modification serves the child’s best interest, and that one of the three statutory grounds for changing the residential parent applies.

Criado v. Truesdell, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2003) · filed 2003-12-05(E)(1)(a)

In order for a trial court to modify a prior child custody decree, therefore, the party requesting the modification must demonstrate the following: (1) a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, his residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree; (2) the requested modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child; and (3) one of the three scenarios described in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)(i) through (iii) is applicable. ... Furthermore, as the moving party, appellee was obligated to provide evidence that the modification was in the child's best interest.

A trial court’s decision to modify custody under Section 3109.04(E)(1) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Toops v. Toops, Unpublished Decision (4-5-2004) · filed 2004-04-05(E)(1)

A trial court's decision to modify custody pursuant to this statute will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a custody decree when changed circumstances make the change serve the child’s best interest and its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

In Re Rutan, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2004) · filed 2004-08-02(E)(1)(a)

Based on the aforementioned evidence, the juvenile court found that a modification of the prior custody decree was in Frankie's best interest because of his need for stability in his life, that there had been a change of circumstances since the original custody decree in 1990, and that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment was outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to Frankie. In reviewing the relevant factors to consider, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the prior decree and designating Brian as the residential parent.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court may modify a prior custody decree, and the factors offered to show that change may be considered individually or together.

Travis v. Travis, 06-Ca-39 (8-3-2007) · filed 2007-08-03(E)(1)(a)

Taken alone or collectively, the factors cited by David that he argues establish that a change in circumstance has occurred are insufficient to meet the standard enunciated in R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) in regards to a trial court's modification of a prior custody decree.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances inquiry before a court modifies the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities; subsection (E)(2) does not replace that inquiry.

Rice v. Higgins, 07ca009247 (5-12-2008) · filed 2008-05-12(E)(1)(a)

On the authority of Fisher , the trial court abused its discretion when it applied R.C. 3109.04 (E)(2) in lieu of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) and failed to consider whether a change of circumstances had occurred prior to modifying the parties' allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) permits modification of parental rights only upon a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests, and a determination that the change’s advantages outweigh its likely harm.

C.G. v. C.L., 90341 (6-26-2008) · filed 2008-06-26(E)(1)(a)(iii)

Stated succinctly, modification of parental rights can occur only 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 of environment to the children.

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

Wooten v. Schwaderer, 14-08-13 (6-30-2008) · filed 2008-06-30(E)(1)(a)

A determination of whether a change of circumstances has occurred is a threshold inquiry that must occur before determining whether a modification would be in the best interest of the child.

In deciding whether to modify parental rights, a court must properly consider whether a parent’s sexual offense against a minor constitutes a change in circumstances and whether the child’s best interest calls for a change in custody.

Neighbor v. Jones, 24032 (7-23-2008) · filed 2008-07-23(E)(1)(a)

This Court concludes, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider whether Misty's conduct constituted a change in circumstances and whether, in light of the nature of her criminal offense, it was in C.N.'s best interest to remain in her custody.

Enforcing an existing custody order’s provision for standard visitation when the parents cannot agree on visits does not modify parental rights under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Van Scoder v. Van Scoder, 11-08-06 (9-22-2008) · filed 2008-09-22(E)(1)(a)

Contrary to Amber's assertions, the court's March 14, 2008 judgment entry did not modify parental rights and responsibilities. The evidence adduced at the February 11, 2008 hearing revealed that the parties were unable to agree on Amber's visitation with the children. The court accordingly found it in the children's best interests to name Michael the residential parent and to allow Amber visitation under the court's standard visitation schedule. In so doing, the court merely enforced the contingency provision in its April 3, 2007 judgment entry.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) generally requires a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and advantages that outweigh the likely harm before a court modifies a prior allocation of parental rights.

Crites v. Dingus, 07ca38 (12-24-2008) · filed 2008-12-24(E)(1)(a)

Thus, to modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, three factors generally guide a trial court's decision: (1) whether a change in circumstances occurred, (2) whether modification is in the child's best interest, and (3) whether the benefits that result from the change outweigh any harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and a finding that its advantages outweigh potential harm before custody may be modified.

In Re A.S., 07ca40 (7-7-2008) · filed 2008-07-07(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 decision, (2) modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child, and (3) the advantages of modification outweigh the potential harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a finding that changing custody serves the children's best interests before a court may grant a motion to modify parental rights.

Cichanowicz v. Cichanowicz, 3-08-04 (9-22-2008) · filed 2008-09-22(E)(1)(a)

Since the Magistrate's best interest finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and a finding that modifying custody is in the best interest of the children is necessary for a court to grant a motion to modify parental rights, the trial court's denial of Phil's motion was, likewise, not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances and a showing of the child’s best interest when a parent seeks a change of legal custody.

In Re Wiley, 2008-P-0062 (1-23-2009) · filed 2009-01-23(E)(1)(a)

Contrary to the finding of the trial court, it was established at that hearing that Jaimie had always had custody of her sons; we believe, that pursuant to both R.C. 2151.42 and 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), once Shawn filed his motion for legal custody of Trent, both a change in circumstances, and a showing of Trent's best interest, had to be made pursuant to R.C. 2151.42 (B).

A sufficient change in circumstances warrants evaluating the child’s best interests under the factors in section 3109.04(F)(1).

Edwards v. Edwards, 07ca52 (8-18-2008) · filed 2008-08-18(F)(1)

Appellant sufficiently proved there was a change of circumstances warranting an evaluation of the best interest of the child vis-à-vis the factors to be considered in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) applies only when a prior decree allocated parental rights and responsibilities; a child support order that merely recognizes the statutory custodial parent does not qualify.

Dewitt v. Myers, 08-Ca-86 (2-20-2009) · filed 2009-02-20(E)(1)(a)

Because there has been no "prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities," R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) is inapplicable to consideration of DeWitt's motion for custody of his children.

A child’s maturation over a significant period, combined with other pertinent factors, can establish the changed circumstances needed to modify a parental-rights decree.

Dodson v. Bullinger · filed 2010-12-20(E)(1)(a)

Moreover, we note that the passage of time during a significant developmental portion of a child’s life, combined with other pertinent factors may support a trial court’s finding of a change of circumstances, requiring further inquiry into the best interest of the child by a trial court.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) allows modification of a prior allocation of parental rights only when new or previously unknown facts show changed circumstances and modification serves the child's best interest.

Theurer v. Foster-Theurer, Ca2008-06-074 (3-30-2009) · filed 2009-03-30(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) provides, "[t]he court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, 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 a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child's 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." ... After review of the record, we find no abuse by the trial court.

A custody modification may serve the child’s best interest even when the allegations that prompted an earlier emergency transfer of custody were not substantiated.

D.M. v. J.M. · filed 2010-08-18(E)(1)(a)

If a change of circumstances is demonstrated, the trial court must then determine whether the modification is in the best-interests of the child. ... Thus, while Mother has pointed to evidence that discredits the premise upon which custody was initially transferred to Father, the trial court’s determination as to whether a change in custody was in M.M.’s best interest extended beyond the issues that prompted the emergency transfer of custody. In light of all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the trial court’s decision to modify the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court changing the residential parent to find changed circumstances, that the change serves the child’s best interests, and that its benefits outweigh its harm.

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

In order for a court to reallocate parental rights and responsibilities and change the residential parent, a court is required to find that a change in circumstances has occurred since the prior custody order; that the change in custody is in the best interests of the child; and that the benefits of the change in custody outweigh the harm caused by the change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child's best interest before a court changes an allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Malone v. Malone · filed 2011-05-02(E)(1)(a)

In order for a trial court to modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, it must make a threshold finding that a change in circumstances has occurred, and, if so, it must then determine that the modification is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a); Wooten v. Schwaderer, 3d Dist. No. 14-08-13, 2008-Ohio-3221, ¶3.

A change in circumstances does not warrant modification of a prior custody decree without a demonstrated material effect on the children.

Bonner v. Deselm-Bonner · filed 2011-05-13(E)(1)(a)

While we agree with Appellant these events could negatively impact the children, we find no record demonstration the situations herein had a material effect on the children to warrant modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior allocation of parental rights only upon findings of changed circumstances, the child’s best interests, and one of the statute’s three remaining factors.

In re B.W. · filed 2011-09-08(E)(1)(a)

In accordance with R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a trial court may not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds: (1) there was a change in circumstances; (2) a modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child; and (3) one of the three remaining factors in the statute is present.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court modifies custody, but an increase in visitation alone does not trigger its best-interest analysis.

In re V.L.M. · filed 2011-12-15(E)(1)(a)

Modification of visitation rights is governed by R.C. 3109.051, not R.C. 3109.04. ... Accordingly, the fact that the trial court increased Murzda's visitation does not mean that it found any change in circumstances such that it was required to perform a best interest analysis under R.C. 3109.04.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests before custody may be modified.

Genhart v. David · filed 2011-12-22(E)(1)(a)

Modifications that alter custody specifically require the court to find that there has been a change in circumstances, and these modifications must be based on the best interests of the child. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

After a change in circumstances, § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a custody modification to serve the child’s best interests and the advantages of changing the child’s environment to outweigh the likely harm.

Gomez v. Gomez · filed 2011-06-09(E)(1)(a)

Instead, we must consider whether modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the children and, if so, whether the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the children.

A court may designate a different residential parent after finding changed circumstances and properly considering the modification and best-interest factors in § 3109.04(E)(1) and (F)(1).

Luburgh v. Luburgh · filed 2011-11-03(E)(1), (F)(1)

Upon review of the record, we find the trial court properly considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) and (F)(1). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change of circumstances since the last parenting order, and in designating Father the residential parent and legal custodian of the parties’ minor child, S.L.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires all three findings—changed circumstances, necessity to serve the child’s best interest, and advantages of a new environment outweighing its likely harm—before a court may modify a prior parental-rights order.

Musgrove v. Musgrove · filed 2011-09-02(E)(1)(a)

The findings that R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires the court to make are conjunctive; that is, all three must be found in order for the court to modify its prior order.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a modification serving the child’s best interest, and advantages of the change that outweigh the likely harm before a court may modify an existing custody decree.

Chaney v. Chaney · filed 2012-02-17(E)(1)(a)

In order to prevail on his motion, Father needed to demonstrate that (1) there had been a change in the circumstances of J.C. or Mother, (2) modification of the existing custody decree was necessary to serve J.C.’s best interest, and (3) the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment was outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to J.C. See R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of parental rights only when later-arising or previously unknown facts establish a change in circumstances, modification serves the child’s best interest, and its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

In re E.R.P. · filed 2012-03-15(E)(1)(a)

The statute provides that a court may not grant a modification of parental rights unless, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, the court finds: (1) there was a change in circumstances; (2) a modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child; and (3) the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.

An actual relocation with the children constitutes a change in circumstances under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), but custody may remain unchanged when the harm from changing it outweighs the benefits.

Sunseri v. Geraci · filed 2012-03-27(E)(1)(a)

Thus, appellee’s relocation from Ohio to Florida with the children constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the court to move forward with its analysis. ... Thus, although the court erred in finding that there was not a significant change in circumstances, it nonetheless acted within its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for reallocation of parental rights since it found that the benefits of a change in custody would not outweigh the harm likely to be caused by the change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court to independently determine whether circumstances have changed before considering the child’s best interest and the effects of a custody change.

Eatherton v. Behringer · filed 2012-04-09(E)(1)(a)

Based on this Court’s explanation in Clark, we find that the trial court must independently determine each step within R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). Procedurally, the trial court must first determine whether there has been a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(A)(1) does not require a motion to change custody to have a particular title or caption to invoke the court’s authority to allocate parental rights.

Carr v. Kaiser · filed 2012-06-18(A)(1)

At the outset we note that the above portions of R.C. 3109.04(A)(1) specify only the filing of a “pleading” or “motion.” The statute does not require a motion for change of custody to contain any particular designation, title or caption in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court to determine the allocation of parental rights.

A parent seeking reallocation of parental rights must show a change in the child’s or residential parent’s circumstances, that modification serves the child’s best interest, and that its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Cure v. Cure · filed 2012-06-29(E)(1)(a)

In order to prevail on a motion for reallocation of parental rights, the movant must demonstrate that (1) there has been a change in the circumstances of the child or the residential parent, (2) modification of the existing custody decree is necessary to serve the child’s best interest, and (3) the harm likely to be caused to the child by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires proof of a change in circumstances before a court may modify a prior custody decree.

Cireddu v. Clough · filed 2013-05-20(E)(1)(a)

While Clough emphasizes the importance of evaluating the children’s best interest in a custody determination, the law clearly sets forth that the change of circumstances factor must be proven for the court to make a ruling that alters its prior custody determination.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) requires a court modifying custody to find that the benefits of changing the child’s environment outweigh the likely harm.

Ford v. Ford · filed 2012-11-26(E)(1)(a)(iii)

In addition to the issues of “change in circumstances” and whether a custody modification is in the best interest of the child, in determining whether the modification is appropriate, a trial court must also find that the harm that will result from the change will be outweighed by the resultant benefits, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a parental rights decree only after a substantive change in circumstances and when the modification serves the child’s best interest.

Jacobs v. Jacobs · filed 2012-12-10(E)(1)(a)

Under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) of the Ohio Revised Code, “[a] court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, 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 a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child’s 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.” The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a change in circumstances “must be a change of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change.” ... Upon review of the record, we conclude that there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was in the children’s best interest to reside with Mr. Jacobs.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) requires the court to retain the existing residential parent unless modification serves the child's best interest and its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child's environment.

Atkins v. Stevens · filed 2012-12-28(E)(1)(a)(iii)

In applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential parent designated in the prior decree, unless a modification is in the child's best interest and, as pertinent here, the harm likely to be caused by the change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change.

A parent seeking to modify a custody decree must show a change in the child’s or residential parent’s circumstances, that modification serves the child’s best interest, and that the advantages of changing the child’s environment outweigh the likely harm.

In re K.S. · filed 2013-03-15(E)(1)(a)

In order to prevail on a motion for reallocation of parental rights, the movant must demonstrate that (1) there has been a change in the circumstances of the child or the residential parent, (2) modification of the existing custody decree is necessary to serve the child’s best interest, and (3) the harm likely to be caused to the child by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a); Chaney v. Chaney, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24880, 2012-Ohio-626, ¶ 10.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), the change-of-circumstances inquiry looks back to the last decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities, even if a later order modified parenting time.

Reese v. Siwierka · filed 2013-06-28(E)(1)(a)

We find appellant’s argument that the trial court should have utilized the October 5, 2011 judgment entry as the “look back” date to be without merit. That date only modified the parties’ parenting-time rights. ... The plain language of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), governing whether a court may modify custody, states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children.” ... Therefore, the trial court did not err in looking back to February 12, 2010, to determine whether a change of circumstances had occurred.

Once a change in circumstances permits reconsideration of custody, the court must consider all factors bearing on the child’s best interests, including facts predating the prior custody order.

Kolleda v. Kolleda · filed 2014-05-12(E)(1)(a)

Having determined that a change in circumstances existed sufficient to reconsider the custodial arrangement, the domestic relations court has the ability and obligation to consider all factors that bear on the children’s best interests, not merely those factors that have arisen since the preceding custody entry.

Section 3109.04(F) allows a court deciding whether to modify custody to weigh unpaid child support, a child-endangering conviction, and the disruption a change would cause the child.

Greenlee c. Greenlee · filed 2014-05-30(F)

The magistrate placed weight on two statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04(F) – (1) the fact that Kiel failed to make his required child support payments; and (2) the fact that Kiel had been convicted of misdemeanor child endangering involving T.G. ... Under these circumstances, the magistrate concluded that the benefits of a change of custody would be limited or non-existent, compared to the cost of the substantial disruption in T.G.’s life. The trial court agreed with the magistrate’s assessment of the statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04(F), and so do we.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) permits a custody modification without an express harm-versus-advantages finding when the record supports the conclusion that the court made the required determination.

Hunter-June v. Pitts · filed 2014-06-09(E)(1)(a)(iii)

We note that neither the magistrate's decision nor the trial court's decision expressly made the required finding under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii). ... We find this evidence contained sufficient information to find that the harm to Kyle and Camden was outweighed by the advantages of Father being the residential parent. Thus, it can be concluded that the trial court followed the dictates of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) in making its decision.

Section 3109.04(E)(1) requires courts to consider the child’s best interests when modifying an allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Owais v. Costandinidis · filed 2014-09-19(E)(1)

As was noted, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) requires courts to take into account the best interests of the child when modifying an allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, and we review the court’s award for abuse of discretion.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior parental rights decree only after a qualifying change in circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest.

Myosky v. Myosky · filed 2014-10-03(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) provides in pertinent part: ... The court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, 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 a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child’s 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. ... A thorough review of the magistrate’s decision as well as the trial court’s decision and order leads us to conclude the trial court did not commit plain error.

When changing custody would not serve the child’s best interest, the court need not decide whether the advantages of the change outweigh the harm.

Frick v. Howell · filed 2015-09-01(E)(1)(a)(iii)

Because modification of custody would not serve the child’s best interest, we need not address appellant's argument that the benefits of modifying custody outweigh any harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances, a modification in the child’s best interests, and advantages from changing the child’s environment that outweigh the likely harm.

Furbee v. Bittner · filed 2015-10-26(E)(1)(a)

As will be discussed below, for a change of custody, R.C. 3109.04(E) requires a change of circumstances and a determination that (1) the modification is in the child’s best interests and (2) the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a custody decree only upon a substantial change in circumstances based on new or previously unknown facts; a child’s preference alone is insufficient, particularly when the decree anticipated that preference.

Rohrbach v. Rohrbach · filed 2015-11-16(E)(1)(a)

In sum, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) precludes a trial court from modifying a prior custody decree unless it finds that a change based upon facts that have arisen or that were unknown to the trial court since the time the court entered the prior decree has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the parents subject to a shared parenting decree. We conclude that the record in this case simply does not support the trial court’s determination that a change in circumstances had occurred based solely upon the child’s desire to live with one parent over the other, especially when such an event was specifically contemplated by the prior shared parenting plan, and absent any other evidence that there was a change of substance which had a material and adverse effect on the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of parental rights only upon a change in circumstances since the last decree, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interest, and a determination that its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

In re S.R.L. · filed 2015-12-14(E)(1)(a)

In short, modification of parental rights can occur only if (1) there was a change in circumstances since the last decree; (2) a modification is deemed to be in the child’s best interest; and (3) the harm likely to be caused by the change is outweighed by the advantages of the change in environment to the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the children’s best interests, and advantages that outweigh the likely harm before a court modifies a custody decree.

DiDonato v. DiDonato · filed 2016-04-11(E)(1)(a)

Three elements must exist in order for a trial court to modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities: (1) there must be an initial threshold showing a change in circumstances; (2) if circumstances have changed, the modification of custody must be in the children’s best interests; and (3) any harm to the children from a modification of the plan must be outweighed by the advantages of such modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a custody change when changed circumstances materially and adversely affect the child, the change serves the child’s best interest, and its advantages outweigh the likely harm.

Jones v. Wall · filed 2016-05-02(E)(1)(a)

After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court properly found that a change of circumstances had occurred, that it was in the child's best interest that Father have custody, and that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests; an erroneous finding of no change is harmless when the court also considers best interests and properly denies modification.

Martin v. Martin · filed 2015-11-23(E)(1)(a)

Although this court found a substantial change of circumstances that materially affected the children, the error of the trial court in not finding a change of circumstance was harmless because the trial court did continue with the analysis to consider the best interests of the children. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) mandates that a court shall not modify a prior decree of parental rights and responsibilities without a finding that there is a change of circumstance and that the change of parental rights and responsibilities is in the best interests of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires changed circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child's best interest, and benefits outweighing likely harm before a court modifies a prior allocation of parental rights.

Torch v. Criss · filed 2015-12-17(E)(1)(a)

Thus, before a court may modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, it must consider: (1) whether a change in circumstances occurred, (2) whether modification is in the child's best interest, and (3) whether the benefits that result from the change outweigh any harm.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court must consider the child’s best interests when modifying a parental-rights decree.

Patron v. Patron · filed 2015-12-21(E)(1)(a)

Thus, a trial court will not have to reach the best interest analysis if a change of circumstances is not found.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs modification of parental rights and responsibilities; its change-in-circumstances requirement does not apply when a court modifies only visitation and does not adopt a shared parenting plan.

In re I.A.G. · filed 2016-06-09(E)(1)(a)

Mother’s argument relies on R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which governs the modification of parental rights and responsibilities. However, despite Mother’s concerns, our review of the trial court’s September 21, 2015 judgment entry clearly indicates that the trial court did not adopt a shared parenting plan. In fact, the trial court expressly declined to impose a shared parenting plan until the parties could agree to the terms of such a plan in the future.

Under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a), postdecree criminal activity, driving children without a license, and allowing a sex offender and a recovering heroin addict to live in the home can support a change of circumstances and a finding that the advantages of changing the children’s environment outweigh the likely harm.

J.L. v. T.L. · filed 2016-09-30(E)(1)(a)

In light of the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it found a change of circumstances had occurred in this case. Further, given the nature of the aforementioned incidents that took place since the dissolution, some of which resulted in criminal charges or unlawful activity, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment was outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court modifying custody to apply the full reallocation test; when the order does not show that the court applied it, remand calls for express findings on each prong.

Allison v. McCune · filed 2016-11-16(E)(1)(a)

As it is unclear whether the complete test for reallocation of the parental rights was applied, we are compelled to reverse and remand. We instruct the court to make express statutory findings with reasoning as to each prong of the reallocation test on remand.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) bars modification of a prior custody decree without a finding that the change serves the child’s best interest and requires consideration of whether the advantages of the change outweigh its likely harm.

D.M v. J.D. · filed 2017-06-05(E)(1)(a)

Absent a finding by the juvenile court that the change in custody is in the best interest of the child, the juvenile court may not modify the prior decree. As such, we must reverse the juvenile court's decision, and remand the matter so that the juvenile court may make the required finding and address – specific to the best interest finding – whether the harm likely to be caused by a change is outweighed by the advantages of the change.

An order enforcing a parental decision-making right already granted in a divorce decree does not modify the decree under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Schmitt v. Ward · filed 2017-07-26(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) states in pertinent part: ... Although the language in these paragraphs may be inartful, when read in the context of the entire record, including the complete journal entry, the divorce decree, and the hearing transcript, these paragraphs do not expand Schmitt’s authority, but rather enforce a preexisting right granted to Schmitt in the divorce decree. ... Therefore, based on the foregoing, we conclude that the March 30, 2016 journal entry does not improperly modify the divorce decree.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change-of-circumstances finding before a court may reallocate parental authority over a child’s medical decisions.

Hynd v. Roesch · filed 2017-09-05(E)(1)(a)

Given these points, we hold the trial court erred in modifying the parental rights and responsibilities as they pertain to the child’s medical decisions without making the statutory findings set forth under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

A court must determine whether the advantages of changing a child’s environment outweigh the likely harm, separately from its best-interest analysis.

Riegel v. Bowman · filed 2017-08-30(E)(1)(a)(iii)

While there is probably room for some overlap between the consideration of the best interest factors of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and the harm/advantage analysis of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii), they are separate questions.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior custody decree when the residential parent’s circumstances have changed and modification is necessary for the child’s best interest.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2017-10-13(E)(1)(a)

A court may modify a prior custody decree if it finds that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child’s residential parent and that the modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs a request to change the designated residential parent and legal custodian under a shared parenting decree and requires a material change in circumstances.

In re B.H.H. · filed 2017-10-30(E)(1)(a)

Because Father's March 28, 2016 motion sought to modify the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities by asking the juvenile court to re-designate the residential parent and legal custodian under the shared parenting agreement and grant sole custody of the child to Father, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) applied, and not R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a trial court to find a change in circumstances before it modifies a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

N.S. v. C.E. · filed 2017-11-17(E)(1)(a)

Here, we find that the trial court’s judgment entry fails to comply with R.C. 3109.04. Most critically, the entry lacks any indication that the court found a change in circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which is the necessary first step in the statute’s modification calculus.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court to consider a change of circumstances and the child’s best interest before terminating a shared parenting arrangement.

Krzyzak v. Krzyzak · filed 2017-12-22(E)(1)(a)

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

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a finding of changed circumstances before a court reallocates parental rights, and failure to make that finding is plain error.

In re A.G. · filed 2018-01-25(E)(1)(a)

The trial court was required to make a finding that a change in circumstances existed such that the reallocation of parental rights was appropriate. No such finding exists in the record before this court. This constitutes plain error.

A parent seeking to modify custody under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) must show a substantial change in circumstances based on facts arising after, or unknown at, the prior decree.

Cutlip v. Gizzo · filed 2018-02-21(E)(1)(a)

Cutlip has not demonstrated that evidence of record supported a change in circumstances to support a modification of custody, or that the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably in declining to find a change in circumstances and modify custody.

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

Brumfield v. Brumfield · filed 2018-03-12(E)(1)(a)

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), before a trial court can modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities it must find that a change in circumstances occurred, and then it must find that the modification of the order is necessary to serve the best interest of the children.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a substantive change in circumstances before a court considers whether modifying the allocation of parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

In re M.O.E.W. · filed 2018-08-31(E)(1)(a)

Before analyzing whether a modification to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities is in the child’s best interest, the court must first determine whether a change in circumstances has occurred.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances for a change in custody, but not for a modification of visitation.

Collier v. Collier · filed 2018-09-05(E)(1)(a)

But a change in circumstances is only a prerequisite for a change in custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) requires a court reallocating parental rights without the parents’ agreement to find changed circumstances, that reallocation serves the child’s best interest, and that its advantages outweigh likely harm.

In re B.I.W. · filed 2018-11-13(E)(1)(a)(iii)

In the absence of an agreement by the parties, before the trial court may reallocate parental rights and responsibilities, it must find (1) a change in the circumstances of the child or the residential parent, (2) that the reallocation is necessary to serve the best interest of the child, and (3) that the advantages of the change in the child’s environment outweigh any likely harm caused by the change. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii).

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

Rodriguez v. Porras · filed 2018-11-20(E)(1)(a)

Upon review, we concur with the trial court's analysis and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for the reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

A court may modify a prior allocation of parental rights only upon a change in circumstances, a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests, and a determination that its advantages outweigh the likely harm.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2019-01-22(E)(1)(a)

Three elements must exist in order for a trial court to modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities: (1) there must be an initial threshold showing a change in circumstances; (2) if circumstances have changed, the modification of custody must be in the children's best interests; and (3) any harm to the children from a modification of the plan must be outweighed by the advantages of such modification.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) governs changes to the designation of the residential parent or legal custodian; when one parent is the legal custodian, changes to visitation or parenting time are governed by Section 3109.051.

Hartman v. Hartman · filed 2019-05-02(E)(1)(a)

Consequently, when one parent is the legal custodian, modifications to visitation or parenting time are not governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a parental-rights decree only upon a change in circumstances, a showing that modification serves the child’s best interest, and advantages that outweigh the likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Premier v. Premier · filed 2019-06-26(E)(1)(a)

Three elements must exist in order for a trial court to modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities: (1) there must be an initial threshold showing of a change in circumstances; (2) if circumstances have changed, the modification of custody must be in the child’s best interest; and (3) any harm to the child from a modification of the plan must be outweighed by the advantages of such modification. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

A parent seeking to modify a custody decree under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) bears the initial burden of proving a change of circumstances that materially and adversely affects the child.

Oyedare v. Oyedare · filed 2019-07-08(E)(1)(a)

Based on the record now available, we find no error in the domestic relations court's decision finding Mother failed to meet her initial burden of proof requiring her to demonstrate that a "change of circumstances" had occurred.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a prior custody decree only upon a change in circumstances and a finding that modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interest.

Lemasters v. Lemasters · filed 2019-10-28(E)(1)(a)

In determining whether a modification of custody is warranted, the trial court must follow R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). Pursuant to that statute, the juvenile court cannot modify a prior decree unless it finds: (1) that there has been a change in circumstances since the time of the prior decree, and (2) that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.

Before reallocating parental rights without the parties’ agreement, a court must find changed circumstances, that reallocation serves the child’s best interest, and that its advantages outweigh likely harm from changing the child’s environment.

Holsopple v. Holsopple · filed 2020-03-31(E)(1)(a)(iii)

In the absence of an agreement by the parties, before the trial court may reallocate parental rights and responsibilities, it must find (1) a change in the circumstances of the child or the residential parent, (2) that the reallocation is necessary to serve the best interest of the child, and (3) that the advantages of the change in the child's environment outweigh any likely harm caused by the change. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify a prior custody allocation under a shared parenting decree.

In re A.Z. · filed 2020-05-14(E)(1)(a)

Not only does the record support that maintaining the current SPP is in the best interest of the child, the record also demonstrates that there has been no change of circumstance that warrants a change of custody.

Section 3109.04(E) requires a change of circumstances to justify modifying an existing custody allocation; without one, the court cannot modify custody.

S.S. v. F.M. · filed 2020-07-24(E)

Given the record before us, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that appellant failed to establish a change of circumstances that would justify a modification of custody in this case. Absent a change of circumstances, the trial court properly reversed the magistrate’s decision modifying the preexisting custodial arrangement between the parties.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a parenting decree only when circumstances have changed since the prior decree based on new or previously unknown facts, modification serves the children’s best interest, and one of the listed conditions is met.

Saylor v. Lewis · filed 2020-07-08(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) governs motions to modify a parenting decree, including decrees regarding custody and residency. Modifying a parenting decree is not permitted unless: (1) there has been a change in circumstances since the prior decree, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or were unknown by the court at the time of the prior decree; (2) the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the children; and (3) one of the conditions in R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(i)-(iii) is satisfied.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before custody can be modified; absent that change, a court need not reach the child’s best interests.

Shamblin v. Shamblin · filed 2021-03-04(E)(1)(a)

If no change in circumstances occurred, the requirements for a change of custody cannot be satisfied, and a reviewing court need not examine the trial court's determination of the child's best interests.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court to find changed circumstances and that modification serves the child’s best interest before changing a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

In re S.H. · filed 2021-09-30(E)(1)(a)

It is well settled that a court cannot modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities without finding that there has been a change of circumstances and that the modification is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) allows a custody modification when circumstances have changed, modification serves the child’s best interest, and its advantages outweigh the likely harm from changing environments; proof that the child was already in harm’s way is unnecessary.

Calhoun v. Calhoun · filed 2021-12-27(E)(1)(a)(iii)

Appellant’s argument asserts that appellee was required to show that the children were in harm’s way while in her care in order for the court to order a change of custody. But that is not the standard. Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii), the trial court had to find a change in circumstances, that a modification is in the best interest of the children, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment was outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) measures a change in circumstances from the prior decree allocating custody; an intervening parenting-time order does not bar evidence predating that order.

Benchic v. Skaggs · filed 2022-03-16(E)(1)(a)

In our view, the court’s March 2019 entry is not a “prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children” within the meaning of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).