Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court weighs the child’s best interest on a motion to modify custody.

Elam v. Elam, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2001) · filed 2001-12-10(E)(1)(a)

Because the court must make a threshold determination that a change in circumstance has occurred before weighing the child's best interest, the trial court did not err by failing to consider the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04 requires a change in circumstances for custody modification; that requirement does not govern modification of visitation.

Geer v. Marchal, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2002) · filed 2002-02-22

However, the change of circumstances requirement is found in R.C. 3109.04 , which governs issues of custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before custody may be modified; issues considered in the prior custody order do not establish that change merely because they continue.

Warnecke v. Warnecke, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2002) · filed 2002-03-29(E)(1)(a)

As such, this does not amount to a change in circumstances according to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), since the purpose of requiring a change in circumstances is to prevent a constant relitigation of issues raised and considered when the trial court issued its prior custody order.

A parent's same-sex relationship constitutes a change of circumstances only if it presently has an adverse collateral impact on the child.

Page v. Page, 07ca0109 (6-20-2008) · filed 2008-06-20(E)(1)(a)

A parent's conduct in engaging in a homosexual relationship with another, consenting adult has no relevance to allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, absent proof that the parent's relationship presently has an adverse collateral impact on the child or children involved. Inscoe v. Inscoe (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 396 . The same test reasonably applies to whether the relationship constitutes a change of circumstances for purposes of R.C.3109.04(E)(1)(a).

A parent's convictions for numerous voyeurism offenses after a shared parenting decree can constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to permit modification under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Nagel v. Hogue, Ca2007-06-011 (6-23-2008) · filed 2008-06-23(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellant's convictions on numerous voyeurism charges constituted a sufficient change of circumstances to permit modification of the parties' shared parenting plan for purposes of R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a change in circumstances to be found from a combination of relevant factors, including remarriage, a spouse’s untreated alcoholism, and repeated domestic disturbances.

Bracy v. Bracy, 1-08-15 (8-4-2008) · filed 2008-08-04(E)(1)(a)

Although Carla correctly asserts R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a)'s intent is to promote stability in the custodial status of children, the trial court's consideration of a combination of relevant factors was sufficient to find a change in circumstances. While the trial court did note that the passage of time was an important factor, it also considered: Carla's remarriage; Carla's current husband's alcoholism and refusal to seek treatment; and the numerous domestic disturbances between Carla and her current husband, in addition to that of September 22, 2007, which necessitated police response. (Feb. 14, 2008 Order).

An increase in a nonresidential parent’s time with the children following a move does not necessarily satisfy the change-in-circumstances threshold for modifying parental rights.

Barto v. Barto, 5-08-14 (10-27-2008) · filed 2008-10-27(E)(1)(a)

Although this may technically be a change of circumstances for the children, it does not meet the high threshold imposed by R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) and the Supreme Court's decision in Davis, 77 Ohio St.3d 415.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require proof that a child suffered adverse consequences to establish a change in circumstances for modification of parental rights.

Labute v. Labute · filed 2008-12-01(E)(1)(a)

A review of the record indicates that clearly there were changes of substance in the child’s life. The trial court relies on the fact that there is no evidence that the child was harmed due to the changes. However, the statute does not require that the child suffer adverse consequences.

A child reaching school age alone does not establish the change in circumstances required to modify a residential-parent designation under § 3109.04(E).

Pazin v. Pazin, 07-Co-43 (12-31-2008) · filed 2008-12-31(E)(1)(a)

A child getting old enough to attend school is by itself insufficient to rebut the presumption contained in R.C. 3109.04 (E).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court may reallocate parental rights and responsibilities.

Welch v. Schudel · filed 2010-03-01(E)(1)(a)

Without a change in circumstances, the trial court could not reallocate the parental rights and responsibilities of the parties herein.

A change in circumstances need not be substantial or quantitatively large, but it must materially affect the children.

Wallace v. Willoughby · filed 2011-06-20(E)(1)(a)

However, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require that the change be substantial, nor does the change have to be quantitatively large, but rather, must have a material effect on the children.

When applicable, § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in the circumstances of the child or residential parent and legal custodian, even when the noncustodial party is a parent and the custodian is a nonparent.

In re K.M. · filed 2011-06-30(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a finding that a change has occurred, not in the circumstances of the nonresidential parent, but in the circumstances of the child or the residential parent and legal custodian. That requirement applies even if the noncustodial party is a parent and the custodial party is a nonparent.

An intended result of a prior custody decision cannot itself establish the change in circumstances required to modify parental rights under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Baxter v. Baxter · filed 2011-08-15(E)(1)(a)

It stands to reason, then, that the desired result from the trial court’s initial determination in a custody challenge cannot later serve as the basis for a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a significant change in circumstances before a court modifies the allocation of parental rights in a decree.

Sejka v. Sejka · filed 2011-09-19(E)(1)(a)

The framework of R.C. 3109.04 is designed to prevent precisely what Mother is attempting to accomplish through her motion, as the statute requires that a party demonstrate that there has been a significant change in circumstances in order to modify the allocation of parental rights set forth under the terms of a decree.

A residential parent’s remarriage can constitute a change in circumstances when the new spouse destabilizes the home and adversely affects the children, even without interference with visitation.

In re K.S. · filed 2011-11-18(E)(1)(a)

We do not read Davis to imply that the only way a new marriage can qualify as a change in circumstances is if it creates visitation-related hostility. To the contrary, we believe the trial court acted within its discretion in finding a change in circumstances based on the instability that R.R.’s hostility and volatility introduced into Mother’s home and the adverse impact his conduct had on R.S. and K.S.

A change in circumstances permitting custody modification may be found from a parent’s second OVI shortly before the prior decree, considered with the surrounding facts.

Oberlin v. Oberlin · filed 2011-12-07(E)(1)(a)

The court, in exercising its discretion, determined that a change in circumstances occurred here. Given the nature of the specific facts before us, we do not believe that the court abused its discretion in reaching that conclusion.

A nonresidential parent’s move closer to the children, without a change in the children’s or residential parent’s circumstances, does not satisfy the change-in-circumstances requirement for modifying parental rights and responsibilities.

Mansbery v. Bach · filed 2011-12-22(E)(1)(a)

Thus, we also agree with the trial court that Bach’s move to Ohio was a change in her circumstances, not a change in the children’s or Mansbery’s.

A change of custody requires a substantive change of circumstances before the court considers the child’s best interest.

Klein v. Botelho · filed 2011-08-19(E)(1)(a)

A change of circumstances must be found before a trial court can determine the best interest of the child in considering a change of custody. R.C. 3109.04; Bell v. Bell, Clark App. No. 2007 CA 9, 2007-Ohio-6347, ¶26. There must be a change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody, and the change must be a change of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) allows a court deciding whether circumstances have changed to consider facts arising after a custody modification motion was filed, even if the motion did not identify those facts.

Simkins v. Perez · filed 2012-03-16(E)(1)(a)

However, nothing in the statute or caselaw restricts the court to the reasons provided in the motion itself in making this determination.

Intentional interference with the other parent’s visitation rights can establish the change in circumstances required to modify custody under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

In re S.M.T. · filed 2012-04-19(E)(1)(a)

The overwhelming evidence showed that the mother intentionally interfered with the father’s visitation rights, so the father established a change in circumstances for purposes of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04 requires a change in circumstances before a court considers the children’s best interests in a custody modification.

Turner v. Turner · filed 2012-05-01(E)(1)(a)

Per R.C. 3109.04, before the court may consider the best interests of the children, it must first find a change of circumstances.

A breakdown in the parents’ communication and cooperation can constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to modify parenting time under a shared parenting plan.

Sypherd v. Sypherd · filed 2012-06-13(E)(1)(a)

A change of circumstances can also include a breakdown in communication between the parents and their inability to communicate and cooperate.

Section 3109.04(E) requires a change in circumstances before modifying a final allocation of parental rights, but no such finding is required when replacing a temporary shared parenting order before the final divorce decree.

Taylor v. Taylor · filed 2012-09-10(E)

Because there was no final decree of divorce, the original shared parenting agreement was actually a temporary order, and, therefore, the trial court was not required to find a change of circumstances prior to allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances before modifying the residential parent, but the change need not adversely affect the child or be substantial.

Gartin v. Gartin · filed 2012-05-18(E)(1)(a)

But to satisfy the statute the change need not have an adverse impact. Nor does the statute require the change to be substantial.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), reaching school age alone does not establish the change in circumstances needed to modify a custody decree.

Babcock v. Welcome · filed 2012-11-14(E)(1)(a)

Babcock’s only basis for stating that the children have matured is the fact that they have reached school age. Thus, she is just stating the same factor in different ways. ... Babcock failed to show that any factor other than the children reached school age supports the conclusion that a change in circumstances occurred. Therefore, we overrule the first assignment of error.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) treats a parent’s criminal conduct that directly endangers the child as a change in circumstances permitting consideration of a custody modification.

Barrett v. LeForge · filed 2012-12-12(E)(1)(a)

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that there had not been a change of circumstances under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) of the Ohio Revised Code. Not only was Mr. Barrett convicted of a criminal offense, the conduct that led to his conviction put J.B.’s safety directly at risk.

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

Haskett v. Haskett · filed 2013-01-22(E)(1)(a)

As the statute makes clear, any change of circumstances must arise since the prior decree in order to meet the first prong of the analysis.

A custody modification requires a change in the child’s or residential parent’s circumstances; a change affecting only the nonresidential parent generally does not suffice outside a shared parenting decree.

Wallace v. Willoughby · filed 2013-02-19(E)(1)(a)

A change in the non-residential parent’s circumstances is generally irrelevant. ... Under the circumstances of this matter, Amber’s relocation and her flexible work schedule are irrelevant, as these facts provide no insight into how William’s circumstances have changed.

Passage of time during a significant developmental period does not alone establish a change of circumstances for modification of a custody decree; other pertinent factors are required.

Eberly v. Eberly · filed 2013-04-22(E)(1)(a)

We do not find this passage of time, alone, sufficient to find a change of circumstance. See, e.g., Boone v. Kaser, 5th Dist. No. 2001AP050050, 2001 WL 1011453 (August 28, 2001). Rather, the passage of time during a significant developmental portion of a child's life must be combined with other pertinent factors.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a substantial change in circumstances that materially and adversely affects the child before a court may modify custody; longstanding parental hostility and the violations shown here did not meet that threshold.

Bingham v. Elliott · filed 2013-07-29(E)(1)(a)

"Although R.C. 3109.04 does not provide a definition of the phrase 'change in circumstances,' Ohio courts have held that the phrase is intended to denote 'an event, occurrence, or situation which has a material and adverse effect upon a child.'" Lewis v. Lewis, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2001-09-209, 2002-Ohio-1601, ¶ 7, citing Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599, 604-605 (7th Dist.2000). In order to warrant the abrupt disruption of the child's home life, the change in circumstances must be one "of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change." Flickinger at 418. ... We find that the trial court did not err in finding that a change in circumstances did not exist in this case.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a change of circumstances when a natural parent seeks to regain legal custody from a nonparent in juvenile court.

In re E.Z.H. · filed 2013-08-05(E)(1)(a)

The trial court did not find a change of circumstances pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and appellants argue this omission was in error; we disagree. ... The trial court was not required, therefore, to find a change of circumstances as a prerequisite to allow Mother to regain legal custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of substance, though not a substantial change, before a court may modify custody.

Vent v. Vent · filed 2012-12-17(E)(1)(a)

The statute’s language does not require a “substantial” change in order to warrant a change of custody, but “the change must be a change of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change.”

Under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a), ongoing parental conflict that harms the children, together with their increased age and strong preference to live with the other parent, can establish the change in circumstances needed to modify custody.

Walsh-Stewart v. Stewart · filed 2012-12-17(E)(1)(a)

The evidence established ongoing animosity between the parties as well as a complete failure to communicate. It further established that M.S. and T.S. were suffering a great deal as a result of the conflict, such that a change was necessary. M.S. and T.S. had aged eight years since the parties’ divorce, and both expressed a strong desire to live with Father for a variety of reasons. In light of all of the foregoing circumstances, the trial court acted within its sound discretion in concluding that a change of circumstances had occurred.

Section 3109.04 requires a change of circumstances before a court may modify parental rights and responsibilities; a planned move can qualify when it significantly affects the child’s welfare by separating the child from extended family.

In re K.S. · filed 2013-01-28(E)(1)(a)

According to R.C. 3109.04, a change of circumstances must occur before a court may modify parental rights and responsibilities. ... Given this evidence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a change of circumstances occurred, which warranted further inquiry into whether a modification of parental rights and responsibilities was in K.S.'s best interest.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a residential parent’s indictment and its effects may constitute the change in circumstances required for a custody modification.

In re C.D.M. · filed 2013-08-28(E)(1)(a)

In the case sub judice, we find that appellant’s indictment on charges of gross sexual imposition, coupled with the ancillary effects of the charges, was a sufficient change in circumstance to support the subsequent modification of custody.

A court modifying a residential-parent designation must find a change in circumstances, which may consist of substantial events that have or may have an adverse effect on the child.

Wright v. Wright · filed 2013-09-09(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) controls when a court modifies an order designating the residential parent and legal custodian. The statute requires a court to find a change in circumstances of the child, the child’s residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree before modifying a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities. ... The record in this case supports the trial court’s conclusion that substantial events have occurred that have or may have an adverse effect on E.W.

An out-of-state move can satisfy the change-in-circumstances requirement when the child’s friends and family remain in Ohio and the child has no connection to the new state.

In re M.P. · filed 2013-09-13(E)(1)(a)

Thus an out-of-state move where all of a child’s friends and family live in Ohio and the child has no connection to the other state can constitute a change in circumstances.

Under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a change in circumstances need not adversely affect the child to satisfy the threshold for considering modification of a custody decree.

Grimes v. Vaske · filed 2013-09-30(E)(1)(a)

Because a change forming a basis for the statutory modification need not be adverse, the court does not need to await an interruption of the current de facto parenting schedule in order to find a change in circumstances and grant a modification of the prior decree.

A nonresidential parent’s improved circumstances do not satisfy the custody modification requirement unless the child’s or custodian’s circumstances have changed.

In re P.A.R. · filed 2014-02-24(E)(1)(a)

Thus, we conclude that the very positive and encouraging changes appellant has made in her life, while commendable, are insufficient to meet the R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) change in circumstances requirement. None of these changes are changes in the child’s or the child’s custodian’s circumstances.

To determine whether circumstances have changed under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a court may consider evidence of conditions before the prior parental-rights determination for comparison.

White v. White · filed 2014-03-28(E)(1)(a)

Finally, in determining whether there has been a change in circumstances since the last determination of parental rights and responsibilities, some comparison of the circumstances of the parties after that determination with the circumstances of the parties before that determination is appropriate, and this may require some evidence concerning the circumstances of the parties before the prior determination.

A change in the circumstances of either parent subject to a shared parenting decree can support modifying parental rights for a child even when the change chiefly concerns another child.

McDonald v. McDonald · filed 2014-06-30(E)(1)(a)

Upon review of the statute, we see nothing in Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) that imposes the kind of limitation Mother contends exists given the section requires only a change “in the circumstances of the child * * * or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree.”

Section 3109.04 requires a change in circumstances to modify a custody order, but its requirement does not apply to a modification of parenting time.

In re R.L.S. · filed 2014-07-28(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, the trial court's failure to consider whether there was a "change of circumstances" under R.C. 3109.04 was proper because the court was modifying Father's parenting time and not modifying a prior custody order.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances for a custody modification, but the cause of that change is not part of the inquiry.

Goad v. Goad · filed 2014-08-18(E)(1)(a)

First, the statute applicable to modification of parental rights and responsibilities does not discuss the cause of the change in circumstances. See R.C. 3109.04(E). Therefore, the focus of the inquiry is not on the cause of the change; instead, the necessary focus is on whether there has been a change at all.

Previously litigated issues do not establish a change of circumstances warranting reallocation of residential parent status under § 3109.04.

Sheridan v. Hagglund · filed 2014-09-10(E)

We agree with the trial court that the same issues were raised by Appellant in the October 24, 2011 hearing which was held for the purpose of addressing the issue of residential parent designation for the commencement of September 2013.

Section 3109.04(E)(1) requires a change in circumstances before modifying a prior custody order; it does not require that finding for an initial custody determination.

A.A. v. S.H. · filed 2014-09-19(E)(1)

We conclude that there was no prior determination of custody. Therefore the trial court did not err in failing to determine whether there had been a change in circumstances as required by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) and by instead applying the best interest test set forth in R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) for initial determinations of custody.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a change in circumstances to modify parenting time when one parent has legal custody and there is no shared parenting plan.

Pirkel v. Pirkel · filed 2014-09-30(E)(1)(a)

Accordingly, Braatz is applicable to this case rather than Gunderman, and the trial court was not required to find that a change in circumstances had occurred before modifying Mr. Pirkel’s parenting time.

A parent's serious relationship with a Tier III sex offender and allowing the child to be alone with that person constitute a change in circumstances for custody modification.

Southworth v. Eskins · filed 2014-10-13(E)(1)(a)

Despite Mother's contention that Gonzalez poses no threat to the child because Gonzalez has been reformed, we agree with the juvenile court that Mother's involvement in a serious relationship with a Tier III sex offender and allowing her child to be alone with Gonzalez constitutes a change of circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a substantive change in circumstances to justify modifying an existing custody allocation.

In re A.K. · filed 2015-01-09(E)(1)(a)

Based on the preceding discussion, the trial court did not err in failing to find that a change of circumstances had occurred sufficient to justify a change of custody under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Under Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a), grandparents assuming a child’s primary care can constitute a change in circumstances supporting modification of custody.

In re C.F. · filed 2015-12-31(E)(1)(a)

We further note that, if grandparents have usurped primary care of a child, it can be considered a change in circumstances.

A custody modification requires a material and adverse change affecting the child based on facts arising after the prior decree or previously unknown to the court.

Premier v. Premier · filed 2016-02-22(E)(1)(a)

Several of the circumstances cited by Father were known to the trial court at the time of the divorce decree and thus were not facts arisen since the decree. Further, upon review, we find it was within the trial court’s discretion to determine that nothing rising to the level of a material and adverse occurrence or occurrences impacting the children was demonstrated for purposes of finding a change in circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(a)(a).

When no shared parenting decree applies, modification of parental rights requires a substantial change in the child’s or residential parent’s circumstances that materially and adversely affects the child.

Sysack v. Ciulla · filed 2016-06-13(E)(1)(a)

In this case, as the parties were not subject to a prior shared parenting plan, the key inquiry was whether there was a substantial change in the circumstances of the child or Mother (the residential parent). In other words, to be substantial, any change in circumstances must have “a material and adverse effect” upon the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court may modify an existing custody award, including an award involving a parent and a nonparent.

Polhamus v. Robinson · filed 2017-01-09(E)(1)(a)

Because we determined in Oliver’s first and second assignments of error that this case does not involve an original-custody determination, the trial court properly considered the change-of-circumstances test under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

A child’s worsening mental health and violent behavior after a prior custody decree can support a substantial change of circumstances for custody modification.

Harrison v. Lewis · filed 2017-01-25(E)(1)(a)

Mental health issues can lead to a change of circumstances determination.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a material and adverse change in circumstances affecting the children before custody may be modified.

Davis v. Davis · filed 2016-10-03(E)(1)(a)

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that nothing rising to the level of a material and adverse occurrence or occurrences impacting the children was demonstrated for purposes of finding a change in circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a child's maturation may be considered with other factors when deciding whether a change in circumstances supports modifying parental rights and responsibilities.

Kenney v. Carroll · filed 2017-01-31(E)(1)(a)

However, the maturing of the child can be considered with other factors in determining whether a change of circumstances has occurred.

A change in a child’s grades supports modifying custody under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) only when the evidence shows a substantive change in overall academic progress.

Allen v. Allen · filed 2017-02-13(E)(1)(a)

In the present case, there is no evidence demonstrating that Nicole’s present grades represent a change in her overall academic progress or what her grades have been historically.

A change of custody requires a substantial change in circumstances that materially and adversely affects the child; slight or inconsequential changes do not suffice.

Heath v. Heath · filed 2017-06-26(E)(1)(a)

Mother failed to demonstrate that the domestic violence incident, Father's pattern of neglecting the child's medical issues, Mother's difficulty in communicating with the child when the child is at Father's home, and Mother's limited access to the child's educational, athletic, and medical records were an "event, occurrence, or situation" which materially and adversely affected the child, or that the changes in circumstances were "of substance" and not a "slight or inconsequential change."

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not treat a nonresidential parent’s remarriage and the birth of another child, standing alone, as a change in circumstances sufficient to modify parental rights.

Delong v. Doster · filed 2017-08-07(E)(1)(a)

We agree with Ashleigh’s argument that the remarriage of Jarrod and the subsequent birth of his daughter do not, on their own, constitute a change in circumstances.

A court may hold a custody-modification hearing even if the motion does not allege a change in circumstances.

Brunett v. Brunett · filed 2017-01-27(E)(1)(a)

But no rule bars a court from holding a hearing if it so chooses.

A custodial parent’s contempt for interfering with visitation does not necessarily establish a change of circumstances warranting a custody modification; the court considers the reasons for the interference.

In re G.M. · filed 2017-10-10(E)(1)(a)

However, that appellee was guilty of contempt does not necessarily constitute a “change of circumstances.” The reason for appellee’s actions must be contextually considered.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a substantial change in circumstances before a court may modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Southern v. Scheu · filed 2018-04-16(E)(1)(a)

We find that the trial court’s determination that a change of circumstances occurred was supported by competent, credible evidence and do not find evidence in the record that shows the trial court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion.

For a custody modification, the prior decree is the most recent decree that actually allocated parental rights; later orders addressing other matters do not reset the period for assessing a change in circumstances.

Hartley v. Hartley · filed 2017-11-09(E)(1)(a)

For purposes of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), the reference to the “prior decree” means the last decree that actually allocated parental rights.

A child's advancing age, stated desire to live with the other parent, and related considerations may constitute the change in circumstances required to modify custody.

Baker v. Baker · filed 2018-08-03(E)(1)(a)

A child’s advancing age coupled with a stated desire to reside with the non-custodial parent and related considerations may constitute a change in circumstances.

A change in circumstances is a threshold requirement for modifying a prior custody decree, so a court need not reach the child’s best interest if no change occurred.

Wolford v. Willis · filed 2018-09-18(E)(1)(a)

As we noted earlier, however, the change-in-circumstances finding is a threshold requirement under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). Without a change in circumstances, a trial court need not analyze whether a modification is in a child’s best interest.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a court deciding whether circumstances have changed to consider developments after a motion to modify custody was filed.

Hagan v. Hagan · filed 2019-01-10(E)(1)(a)

If a court could not consider events as they continued to unfold once a custody motion is filed, the trial court would be perpetually re-addressing new filings alleging a change in circumstances due to the inevitable passage of time between the filing of the original custody motion and the date of the hearing on the motion.

A change in circumstances supporting a custody modification must rest on facts arising after the prior decree or previously unknown to the court.

In re A.P. · filed 2019-01-18(E)(1)(a)

Thus, we must conclude that Father failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances based upon facts that arose after the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree.

Incidents known to the court before the prior custody decree do not establish the change in circumstances required to modify custody.

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

Last, appellant asserts that, in deciding whether he established change of circumstances, this court should consider previous incidents that he cited in his prior contempt motions. However, they were all known to the court before the prior decrees were issued.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a)'s change in circumstances requirement can be met by a residential parent's OVI and firearm arrests when they materially affect the child's welfare.

J.C. v. A.L. · filed 2019-02-11(E)(1)(a)

We find Father’s arrests for OVI and Improper Handling of a Firearm are events or situations that materially affect the child’s welfare.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify a prior parental-rights decree, but does not require a substantial change.

In re E.R. · filed 2019-11-01(E)(1)(a)

By the plain language of the statute, R.C. 3109.04 does not require a “substantial” change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances arising after the prior decree to modify parental rights; a claimed error in the original decree must be raised on direct appeal.

Stover v. Baker · filed 2020-01-21(E)(1)(a)

A motion to modify parental allocations does not take the place of the direct appeal as it does not address anything that changed after the judgment hearing. R.C. 3109.04 prohibits modification of a prior decree unless facts that have arisen since the prior decree show the modification is necessary.

A parent’s dislike of a stepparent’s relationship with the children does not establish the change in circumstances needed to modify parental rights under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Oyler v. Lancaster · filed 2020-03-02(E)(1)(a)

Based upon these established facts, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mother’s dislike of Stepmother’s relationship with the children or how it affects Mother’s relationship with the children is not sufficient to demonstrate a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a change in circumstances for an initial custody allocation when the mother previously held custody only by operation of law under section 3109.042.

Lee v. Whitney · filed 2020-03-16(E)(1)(a)

In accordance, the trial court’s August 16, 2019 judgment entry is not a “modification” within the meaning of R.C. 3109.04(E), but rather the product of an original proceeding to allocate the parental rights and responsibilities of N.W.’s parents. ... Consequently, the required demonstration of a change in circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is not germane to the facts before us.

A change of circumstances supporting modification of parental rights must be substantive and materially affect the child; a court may describe that standard as a significant change.

Knauss v. Unverferth · filed 2020-03-09(E)(1)(a)

Since the trial court is required to find that any change is one of substance and has a material effect on the child, the use of the word significant, as occurred in this case, was not an error.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a substantive change in circumstances before a court may modify an existing custody order.

Lykins v. Lykins · filed 2020-05-04(E)(1)(a)

A trial court asked to redesignate parental rights and responsibilities is required to first find that a change in circumstances occurred to warrant a change in custodianship. ... To the contrary, the record fully supports the court's determination that Father failed to submit evidence of a material or adverse change of circumstances that would justify altering the custody arrangement.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court to consider a child's expressed wishes when deciding whether circumstances have changed enough to permit modification of parental rights and responsibilities.

Schoolcraft v. Markel · filed 2020-06-26(E)(1)(a)

Based on the cited case law, the trial court should have considered the child's wishes in its change in circumstances analysis.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), formal documentation of abuse allegations is not required to show a change of circumstances; the court may assess witness testimony and reports.

Lucas v. Byers · filed 2021-01-29(E)(1)(a)

We therefore conclude father was not obligated to provide formal documentation of mother’s allegations and the trial judge was entitled to assess the credibility of the witness’ testimony, as well as the reports submitted into evidence, in its change-of-circumstance analysis.

A child's wish to live with the other parent generally does not, by itself, establish the change in circumstances required to modify custody under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Echols v. Echols · filed 2021-03-26(E)(1)(a)

Although a child's wishes regarding custody, standing alone, are generally not enough to constitute a change in circumstances, the child's wishes are nevertheless relevant to the analysis.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a change-of-circumstances finding for minor changes to vacation terms or added conditions that do not change the residential parent designation or parenting time.

Short v. Rhodes · filed 2021-05-28(E)(1)(a)

From the language in Fisher, we hold that a trial court does not modify an order allocating parental rights and responsibilities when it makes minor changes to the terms of a parent’s vacation time or imposes additional conditions such as counseling or saying nice things about the other parent. Because those minor modifications and conditions do not change the residential parent designation or even alter the parenting time between the parties, we hold that the trial court was not required to first find a change of circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances based on facts arising after the prior decree or unknown at that time before a court may modify a shared parenting plan.

Perrin v. Perrin · filed 2021-07-29(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, the nature of the postdecree proceeding obligated the trial court to find a change of circumstances, based on new or previously unknown facts, before modifying the shared parenting plan.

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

In re S.B.J. v. Connolly · filed 2021-03-30(E)(1)(a)

Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding no change in circumstances so as to warrant a modification of parental rights and responsibilities and, thus, was not required to proceed to a best interest analysis.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify a custody decree between parents, but that requirement does not apply when a parent seeks to regain custody from a nonparent legal custodian under a private custody agreement.

Speelman v. Campbell · filed 2021-08-04(E)(1)(a)

We determined that the standard for modification set forth in R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) did not apply because the dispute was “not between a residential and nonresidential parent, or parents subject to a shared parenting decree.” ... Upon review, Grandparents have not shown that the trial court erred by refusing to set aside the magistrate’s decision.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court considering modification of parental rights to determine whether circumstances have changed under its corrected findings of fact.

Sandmann v. Weaver · filed 2021-09-29(E)(1)(a)

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment must be reversed and this case remanded to the trial court so that it may address all of Father’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and determine whether there has been a change in circumstances under its corrected findings of fact.

Under a shared parenting decree, a change in either parent’s circumstances can satisfy the change-of-circumstances threshold for modifying parental rights.

In re C.M.H. · filed 2021-11-08(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, a change in the circumstances of either of the parents is sufficient under the statute.

A substantial change in circumstances supporting a custody modification can consist of worsening child health and school issues together with a material reduction in the other parent's parenting time.

Guajardo v. Guajardo · filed 2022-01-28(E)(1)(a)

Based on our review of the record and caselaw, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it held that the children’s worsening health and school issues, as well as Father’s material decrease in parenting time, amounted to a substantial change of circumstances which necessitated a change of the custodial parent.

A motion to modify a shared parenting plan by designating one parent the sole residential parent and legal custodian requires a change in circumstances under subsection (E)(1)(a).

In re A.T. · filed 2022-05-31(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, because we find Father's "Modification of Custody" motion was without question a motion to modify his and Mother's shared parenting plan and not, as Father suggests, a motion to terminate the shared parenting agreement that was governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), the juvenile court did not err by applying R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) to the case at bar and finding a "change of circumstances" was necessary before it could grant Father's "Modification of Custody" motion.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify custody; unsubstantiated abuse allegations and substance use without evidence of an impact on the children did not establish such a change.

Roberts v. Roberts · filed 2022-02-02(E)(1)(a)

Having reviewed the record, and deferring to the knowledge the magistrate had gained through observation of all of the witnesses, we conclude that the evidence adduced herein supported the trial court’s finding of no change of circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a court to find a change in circumstances before modifying an order allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

In re J.D. · filed 2022-03-28(E)(1)(a)

Per the statute, a trial court considering a modification of an order allocating parental rights and responsibilities "is required to first find that a change in circumstances occurred to warrant a change in custodianship."

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) limits the facts supporting a change in circumstances for custody modification to those arising after the prior decree or unknown when it was entered.

Dotson-Brown v. Brown · filed 2022-03-29(E)(1)(a)

Likewise, the domestic violence allegations that occurred in 2013 are irrelevant in this matter in which the court was only to consider facts that have occurred since the divorce or that were unknown at the time of the divorce.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) bars modification of a prior custody decree when the movant alleges changes only in the nonresidential parent’s circumstances, rather than in the child’s or residential parent’s circumstances.

Souders v. Souders · filed 2022-06-10(E)(1)(a)

Because Stephen failed to allege that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the children or of their residential parent, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) precluded the trial court from modifying the existing decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) excludes changes in a noncustodial parent’s circumstances from the change-in-circumstances analysis when there is no shared parenting decree.

Hoying v. Hoying · filed 2022-07-22(E)(1)(a)

Since Jeff was the residential parent, factors 4 and 6 pertaining to changes to Pam’s circumstances could not be considered in the change in circumstances analysis.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court may modify a prior custody allocation; a parent’s response to a child’s unexplained injury did not establish that change here.

Cook v. Kramer · filed 2022-09-20(E)(1)(a)

This record reflects no such change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a court deciding whether circumstances changed to consider facts arising after the original custody order and facts unknown when that order was entered.

In re M.L.S. · filed 2022-06-24(E)(1)(a)

This statute specifically allows the court to consider facts that arose since the original custody order and facts that were unknown to the court at that time.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances and a finding that modification is in the child’s best interest before a court changes the allocation of parental rights to designate a different residential parent and legal custodian.

Brehm v. Brehm · filed 2022-06-29(E)(1)(a)

Because Mother requested the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities be modified to name her the sole residential parent and legal custodian of the Child, “ a determination that a ‘change in circumstances’ has occurred, as well as a finding that the modification is in the best interest of the child, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a),” was required. Id. at ¶ 37.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not apply when the court leaves both parents as custodial and residential parents while changing only the school designation and parenting time.

In re A.M. · filed 2023-04-27(E)(1)(a)

Here, the juvenile court did not grant this motion and did not name Father the sole residential parent. Therefore, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) is inapplicable.

When one parent has sole residential custody, modifying parental rights requires a qualifying change in the child’s or residential parent’s circumstances; changes in the nonresidential parent’s life do not suffice.

Horner v. Tarleton · filed 2023-05-30(E)(1)(a)

As Mother is not the residential parent, a change of circumstances in her life is not relevant to the analysis. The trial court correctly found that this change in Mother’s circumstances, albeit commendable, does not qualify as the type of change contemplated by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

A custodial parent’s interference with parenting time can establish the change in circumstances required by § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) when it materially affects the child.

In re K.L. · filed 2023-10-27(E)(1)(a)

Under appropriate circumstances, a custodial parent’s interference with parenting time can constitute a change in circumstances for purposes of reallocating parental rights.

A parent’s stance against vaccination, known when the custody order was agreed to, is not a change of circumstances supporting modification under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

In re R.S.H.-F. · filed 2024-03-01(E)(1)(a)

Father also claims that R.S.H.-F. is “completely unvaccinated.” This claim was confirmed by both Mother and Dr. T.H., but it was not a change of circumstances; Father knew Mother’s stance on vaccinations when he agreed that she would be the child’s custodial parent.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a prior legal custody decree may be modified; interference with visitation and disregard of custody orders can support that finding.

In re M.G. · filed 2024-02-26(E)(1)(a)

Before a trial court can modify a prior decree or disposition of legal custody, it must find that a change in circumstances has occurred. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) (applied by the trial court in this case); R.C. 2151.42. ... In our own review of the matter, we find that the trial court identified key changes in the circumstances for the child, those being: the death of her father and the utter disregard of court orders by Sharon.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)’s change-of-circumstances requirement does not apply to a juvenile court’s legal-custody decision following an adjudication of neglect and dependency.

In re S.L. · filed 2024-05-23(E)(1)

Under her third assignment of error, mother claims the juvenile court erred by issuing an order without finding a change of circumstances in the child or mother pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1). That provision does not apply in this matter as argued by mother.

A child’s enrollment in school can constitute a change in circumstances supporting modification of a shared-parenting decree.

Starr v. Statler-Houchin · filed 2024-09-23(E)(1)(a)

To that finding, this court has concluded that a child’s enrollment in school can constitute a change in circumstances under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

A custody modification order need not expressly say “change in circumstances” if the record shows that the court applied the appropriate factors.

Horn v. Kimbleton · filed 2025-03-28(E)(1)(a)

A trial court does not need to include the explicit language “change in circumstances” in its entry, but “it must be clear from the record that the trial court applied the appropriate factors.”

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a court must analyze the child’s best interest when asked to modify parental rights and responsibilities.

Hitchcock v. Hitchcock · filed 2025-07-29(E)(1)(a)

Because a change in circumstances was not found, the trial court was not required to conduct a best interest analysis.

A change in circumstances supporting modification of parental rights must be substantive, though it need not be substantial or quantitatively large.

Houle v. Broters · filed 2025-09-15(E)(1)(a)

The change need not be “substantial” nor does it have to be quantitatively large. Id. at ¶ 18. However, the change must be one of substance rather than slight or inconsequential.

A medical-care concern known at the time of the prior custody decree is not a change in circumstances merely because it later appears as a dental-care issue.

Lause v. Lause · filed 2025-12-19(E)(1)(a)

The fact that this issue manifested regarding W.L.’s dental care instead of medical care is not a new circumstance.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), parental alienation supports a change in circumstances only if it has a material and adverse effect on the child.

In re P.L. · filed 2025-12-22(E)(1)(a)

Parental alienation could establish a finding of a change in circumstances, provided that the evidence supports the conclusion that the alienation has caused a material and adverse effect on the child.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a parent’s persistent efforts to prevent the other parent from seeing the child can establish a change in circumstances for custody modification.

In re B.C. · filed 2026-01-12(E)(1)(a)

The trial court specifically found, and the record supports, Mother had done and would do whatever necessary to prevent Father from seeing the Child and Mother had done and was doing whatever necessary to frustrate effective parenting by completely excluding Father. From the beginning of the case, Mother made repeated attempts to thwart Father’s parenting time. ... Upon review of the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04 requires a change in circumstances to modify custody, but that requirement does not apply to modifications of visitation or parenting time.

Motes v. Motes · filed 2026-02-02

Although a change in circumstances is required to modify a custody determination, that requirement does not apply to modifications of visitation or parenting time.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in the child’s or residential parent’s circumstances to modify custody; a nonresidential parent’s improved ability to care for the child or desire for more time does not establish that change.

In re G.M. · filed 2026-03-12(E)(1)(a)

However, Father’s desire to spend more time with the Child and his ability to care for the Child at the time of the proposed legal custody modification cannot, as a matter of law, support a finding of changed circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances to modify a prior custody decree, but the change need not be substantial.

Scarberry v. Scarberry · filed 2011-06-10(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) only requires a finding of a change of circumstances, not a “substantial” change.

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

Thomas v. Thomas · filed 2011-06-17(E)(1)(a)

In other words, based upon the facts that have arisen since the final decree, a change has occurred in the circumstances of A.T. Given that Ms. Thomas prioritizes her own and Mr. Paris’ needs above those of her child, it is in A.T.’s best interest that a modification occur, and we agree with the trial court that any harm to A.T. based upon the ... change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of such change.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances that has already occurred before a court may modify an allocation of parental rights and responsibilities; a contemplated move out of state does not qualify.

In re M.P. · filed 2012-05-24(E)(1)(a)

A contemplated move out of state, however “imminent,” cannot constitute a change of circumstances pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), because such a move has not yet occurred.

A completed relocation can constitute a change in circumstances for custody modification when its effect on the child’s relationships with extended family is considered.

Devall v. Schooley, Ct2006-0062 (5-23-2007) · filed 2007-05-23(E)(1)(a)

Accordingly, we further hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the existence of a change in circumstances by gauging the effect of the relocation on Susan, particularly as to the issue of her relationship with extended paternal and maternal relatives while situated about eight hours away from the Muskingum County area.

A parent’s interstate relocation, particularly without a visitation schedule, can be a consequential change in circumstances supporting modification of parental rights and responsibilities.

In Re R.N., Unpublished Decision (8-17-2006) · filed 2006-08-17(E)(1)(a)

As to the first prong of the Rohrbaugh test, the mother's relocation to North Carolina, particularly without any visitation schedule in place, constituted an obvious, consequential change in circumstances that occurred since the previous shared parenting plan was filed with the court.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a finding of changed circumstances supporting custody modification when repeated household and school moves, parental conflict, and interference with parenting time affect the children.

In Re E.C., Unpublished Decision (1-8-2007) · filed 2007-01-08(E)(1)(a)

In finding a change of circumstances, the trial court noted that Celeste has separated from her husband six times requiring Celeste, M.C. and E.C. to move to another residence each time. As a result, the girls have been required to change schools six times, attending five different schools in a two-year period. ... After reviewing the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change of circumstances.

A residential parent's relocation and its effect on the child can constitute a change in circumstances for modification of parental rights under § 3109.04.

Wallace v. Wallace, Unpublished Decision (2-23-2006) · filed 2006-02-23(E)(1)(a)

{¶ 17} The court's findings of fact amply support the conclusion appellant's relocation to Cincinnati and its effect on the child constitute a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a sufficient change in circumstances before a court may modify a prior allocation of parental rights and responsibilities; the children and residential parent moving to the same city as the other parent is insufficient.

Gordon v. Liberty, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2005) · filed 2005-06-10(E)(1)(a)

In the case sub judice, based on R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a), the record establishes that the only change which has occurred since the prior decree is that appellee and the minor children have moved and presently reside in the same city as appellant. The foregoing is not a sufficient change of circumstance to warrant a modification of the previous allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1), moving a child outside a school district does not establish a substantive change in the child’s circumstances when the child continues attending the same schools.

McCabe v. Dingess, Unpublished Decision (10-13-2004) · filed 2004-10-13(E)(1)

We further find that pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1), there has been no substantive change to the circumstances of the child. Although appellee and the child have relocated out of the Johnstown School District, the child is still a student at Johnstown schools.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits a finding of changed circumstances when the parents have remarried, had additional children, and moved more than once.

Wine v. Wine, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2005) · filed 2005-03-04(E)(1)(a)

Upon review, this Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found a change of circumstances. The facts show that, among other changes, the parties have each remarried, had an additional child and moved more than once.

A proposed relocation that would harm the children’s welfare can constitute a change of circumstances permitting modification of parental rights and responsibilities.

Valentine v. Valentine, Unpublished Decision (5-16-2005) · filed 2005-05-16(E)(1)(a)

A proposed move along with a finding that the move will harm the welfare of the children involved, however, can constitute a change of circumstances.

A residential parent’s actual relocation to another state can establish the change in circumstances required to consider modifying a parental-rights decree.

Lyall v. Lyall, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2004) · filed 2004-03-25(E)(1)(a)

Accordingly, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion by finding a change in circumstances based on appellant's relocation to another state.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a residential parent's relocation combined with visitation problems and evidence of an improper motive may establish the change in circumstances required to modify custody.

In Re Seitz, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2003) · filed 2003-09-26(E)(1)(a)

Appellant's unannounced relocation to the Columbus area, coupled with the history of visitation problems between the parties and appellant's dubious motivation for relocating, supports the conclusion that a change in circumstances has occurred.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) provides for modification of parental responsibilities based on a change of circumstances, including a school district dispute arising under a shared parenting plan.

Butcher v. Butcher, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2002) · filed 2002-12-16(E)(1)(a)

R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a) provides for the modification of parental responsibilities based on a change of circumstances. The parties in this case originally agreed to shared parenting, but were unable to amicably resolve the school district issue when the child reached school age.

A proposed relocation meets the change-of-circumstances threshold for reconsidering custody when it demonstrably affects the child; relocation without a direct impact does not.

Zinnecker v. Zinnecker · filed 1999-05-10(E)(1)(a)

A move that has no direct impact on the child amounts to a slight or inconsequential change; a move that directly impacts the child in some demonstrable way constitutes a substantive change. Such a substantive change is sufficient to meet the threshold showing that a change of circumstances has occurred warranting further inquiry to determine whether a change of custody is in the best interest of the child.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change of circumstances before a court considers whether modifying parental rights serves the child’s best interest; repeated denial of visitation, multiple moves, and an incident involving police can together establish that change.

Riggle v. Riggle, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2001) · filed 2001-09-26(E)(1)(a)

The combination of the foregoing pertinent factors support a finding of a change of circumstances requiring further inquiry into the best interest of the child by the trial court, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04 (E)(1)(a). Hence, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that a change of circumstances had occurred and that its decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) permits modification of a custody decree only when a substantive change in circumstances affects the child and modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interest; relocation alone does not establish the required change.

Thebeau v. Thebeau, 07ca34 (9-10-2008) · filed 2008-09-10(E)(1)(a)

Therefore, a court shall not modify a parenting decree allocating parental rights unless it finds that, based on facts that have arisen since the decree, there has been a change in circumstances in the life of the child or the parents and modification of the decree is necessary to serve the child's best interest. ... The trial court could not reasonably conclude on the record before us that there has been a material change in circumstances adversely affecting the welfare of the children or that modifying the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities was necessary in order to serve the best interests of the children.

A residential parent’s notice of intent to relocate does not itself establish the changed circumstances required to modify custody under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Campana v. Campana, 08 Ma 88 (2-20-2009) · filed 2009-02-20(E)(1)(a)

Because a notice of intent to relocate is not itself sufficient changed circumstances to modify custody to the other parent, the trial court properly denied the father's motion for reallocation of parental rights.

A change in circumstances under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) may be supported by a child’s development from toddler to school age combined with relocation away from the child’s familiar support system.

Brammer v. Meachem · filed 2011-02-07(E)(1)(a)

Even though only four years had passed since the original parenting agreement, we believe a child at six years of age is certainly going through a significant developmental point in their life, and we believe that this factor, along with the other pertinent factors, such as the abrupt relocation to another state which took the child away from her only known support system, certainly supports the trial court’s finding that a change in circumstances had occurred.

A parent’s mere desire or intent to relocate does not establish the change in circumstances required by § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) to modify custody.

In re Dissolution of Marriage of Kelly · filed 2011-05-27(E)(1)(a)

A mere desire or intent to relocate does not constitute the requisite change in circumstances.

A parent’s impending relocation can constitute a change in circumstances when its effects materially alter the children’s lives and make the existing shared-parenting plan infeasible.

Brammer v. Brammer · filed 2011-05-31(E)(1)(a)

Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that Shannon’s impending relocation is a substantial change having a material effect on the children and constitutes a change in circumstances contemplated by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before modifying the allocation of parental rights in a shared parenting arrangement, and a court assessing relocation must consider all surrounding circumstances rather than current employment alone.

Syverson v. Syverson · filed 2012-12-03(E)(1)(a)

Consequently, while Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate, her notice is properly analyzed as a motion to modify under R.C. 3109.04. ... The trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that no change in circumstances had occurred simply because Mother was still currently employed in Ohio.

Relocation alone does not establish the change in circumstances required to modify parental rights, but it may be considered as a factor.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2013-06-17(E)(1)(a)

We have previously held that relocation alone is not sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances, but may be a factor in such determination.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a parent’s repeated relocations tied to alcohol abuse can establish the change in circumstances required to modify a shared parenting plan.

In re S.R.L. · filed 2013-07-25(E)(1)(a)

Here, the evidence demonstrated that Mother’s frequent relocations between 2008 and 2011 were directly related to her alcohol abuse. ... Thus, Mother’s multiple relocations were sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not require a change-in-circumstances finding for an alternative, conditional order that prospectively changes the residential parent if the current residential parent moves.

Brown v. Brown · filed 2013-08-09(E)(1)(a)

Consequently, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) does not apply, which means that no change-in-circumstances finding was necessary.

Repeated relocations that disrupt schooling and the other parent’s weekday contact can support the change in circumstances required to reallocate parental rights.

Amero v. Amero · filed 2013-12-13(E)(1)(a)

In this case, appellant moved twice in less than three years during which time the children were enrolled in three different school districts. This factor weighs in favor of a change in circumstances. Moreover, this factor must be considered along with the other factors supporting a change in circumstances. For instance, when appellant moved the children to Cleveland, she effectively eliminated appellee’s weekday time with the children. His two weekday visits were no longer reasonable and he could not coach softball and participate in school activities as he had in the past. Additionally, the school appellant enrolled the children in had a questionable level of education and did not offer the extracurricular activities the children were interested in. Moreover, the evidence was that appellee has put the children’s best interest first, while appellant may not have done so. When taken as a whole, these factors give the trial court a sound basis for finding a change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before modifying an existing custody decree; a child’s negative reaction to moving between homes while attending all-day kindergarten can satisfy that requirement.

In re A.S. · filed 2016-11-04(E)(1)(a)

This is so because R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.42(B) both require the same “change in circumstances” before an existing custody decree may be modified, and that is the only issue Grandmother raises. ... The record supports a finding that this situation was having a detrimental effect on the child’s welfare and that the ramifications of the situation constituted a change in the child’s circumstances sufficient to warrant a change in legal custody.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), relocation supports a change in circumstances only when its harm to the children exceeds the normal problems of adjusting to a move and a new visitation schedule.

Williamson v. Williamson · filed 2017-03-22(E)(1)(a)

However, in order for a change in circumstances to be found, the amount of harm must “transcend the normal and expected problems” of adjustment to relocation and by extension a new visitation schedule.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before custody may be modified; repeated moves and occasional requests that the other parent care for the child did not compel a finding of such a change where the trial court found no material effect on the child.

In re L.B. · filed 2018-05-18(E)(1)(a)

Here, the trial court did not find that the numerous moves materially affected L.B. Further, the trial court did not find that calling appellant to come and get the child on a couple of occasions constituted a change of circumstances. Given the wide latitude afforded to the trial court in these matters, we cannot say that the trial court’s determination was an abuse of discretion.

Modification of a parental rights decree requires a change in circumstances; a residential parent’s relocation within the same county, without substantial disruption to visitation, does not suffice.

Massong v. Tyner · filed 2022-08-24(E)(1)(a)

Mr. Massong has not alleged circumstances surrounding Ms. Tyner’s relocation that would overcome R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)’s presumption in favor of retaining the existing parenting decree.

Under § 3109.04(E)(1)(a), a substantial relocation that creates conflict and disrupts previously harmonious parenting and visitation arrangements may establish the change in circumstances needed to modify parental rights.

Liles v. Liles · filed 2023-03-29(E)(1)(a)

While relocation alone does not constitute a sufficient change in circumstance, relocating such a significant distance that creates animosity and difficulty in previously harmonious parenting and visitation arrangements may constitute an unforeseen change in circumstances.

Section 3109.04 requires consideration of all relevant best-interest factors in an initial custody award; a parent’s out-of-state relocation is not determinative by itself.

Figley v. Corp, Unpublished Decision (5-25-2005) · filed 2005-05-25(F)(1)

Under this analysis, "R.C. 3109.04 (B)(1) governs initial custody awards and requires that a trial court making an initial custody award apply a `best interest of a child' test. In applying this test, a court should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, those set forth in R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1) (a-j)." (Internal citation omitted.) Hutchison at ¶ 8. In the present case, the trial court individually addressed each of the ten factors in its judgment entry, including Ms. Corp's residence in Las Vegas, which the court did not find determinative.

Section 3109.04(F)(1) supplies the best-interest factors for deciding a motion to relocate under a shared parenting plan, and the trial court’s application of those factors is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Kolb v. Kolb, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2003) · filed 2003-01-29(F)(1)

After careful review of the record and in light of the best interest factors under R.C. 3109.04 (F)(1), this Court cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mother's motion to relocate and dismissed the same.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a parent seeking custody modification based on the other parent’s planned move to show a circumstance beyond the move itself that weighs against the existing allocation of parental rights.

Pennington v. Pennington, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2002) · filed 2002-06-07(E)(1)(a)

In order to find a change of circumstances that would justify a modification of custody, a party seeking modification because the other party is planning to move must show some fact or circumstance other than the mere move that militates against continuing the present allocation of parental rights.

Section 3109.04(E)(1)(a) requires a change in circumstances before a prior allocation of parental rights may be modified; a child’s preference and the post-decree disputes presented here did not meet that threshold.

Kager v. Kager, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2002) · filed 2002-06-17(E)(1)(a)

Appellant herein does not seek such a ruling from this Court, but instead contends that a combination of the facts presented to the magistrate establishes that the threshold of "change of circumstances" has been met. However, upon our review of the record, we disagree with appellant's contention. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that no change had occurred in the circumstances of the two children involved in this matter.

A proposed move across the country that separates a child from a parent and extended family can constitute a change of circumstances for modifying a prior parental-rights allocation.

Duning v. Streck, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2002) · filed 2002-06-24(E)(1)(a)

We agree that a change of circumstances had occurred in that appellee proposed to move across country with the minor child, separating him from his father and extended family.

A custodial parent's move to an undisclosed location is a change in circumstances that warrants inquiry into the child's best interests before custody is modified.

In Re Surdel, Unpublished Decision (9-4-2002) · filed 2002-09-04(E)(1)(a)

Thus, Laurie's change in residence to an undisclosed location is a change in circumstances that warrants a further inquiry into the best interests of the Surdel children.

Section 3109.04(B)(3) permits a child’s removal from the state to be considered in a custody modification only if it adversely affects the child’s best interests to the degree required by the statute.

Schmidt v. Schmidt · filed 1982-04-13(B)(3)

The removal of a child from the jurisdiction is a factor that may be considered if it adversely affects the best interests of the child to the extent set forth by R.C. 3109.04 (B)(3).

Section 3109.04 requires custody decisions to focus on the child’s best interest; increased travel cost and time alone do not justify restricting a custodial parent’s move when the child’s emotional and financial well-being will be maintained.

Schwartz v. Schwartz · filed 1982-12-10

The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the move of the plaintiff will result in anything other than an increase in travel costs and longer transit time for the participants. This standing alone is not a sufficient basis to restrict her freedom of movement. By placing the mother in basically a “no-win” situation, with respect to custody, the trial court has abused its discretion and violated the guidelines of R.C. 3109.04. The evidence indicates that the emotional and financial well-being of the child is being met in Idaho to the same extent as in Ohio. The primary focus of the courts in custody matters being the “best interest of the child,” the action by the court is unsupportable by the evidence in the record.

Section 3109.04(B)(1) does not permit a change of custody solely because the custodial parent moves out of state.

Grigsby v. Nugent · filed 1990-06-04(B)(1)

Thus, the question came down to whether the custodial parent's move, standing alone, was enough to justify a change in custody. Statutory law and case precedent clearly indicate it is not, and so we must overrule appellant's assignment of error.

Section 3109.04(B) permits a court allocating parental rights in the child’s best interests to decline to give the residential parent the right to relocate the children.

Alvari v. Alvari, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2000) · filed 2000-02-02(B)

In a divorce action, the trial court may allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children primarily to one parent and divide the other rights and responsibilities between the parents. The court is to be guided by the best interests of the children when making this allocation. R.C. 3109.04 (B). ... We see no reason why this discretion should not include the authority to decline to allocate the right to relocate the children.

Section 3109.04 governs agreements allocating parental rights and responsibilities; relocation proceedings after a residential parent has been designated are governed by the visitation provisions of section 3109.051.

Holz v. Holz, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2001) · filed 2001-11-16

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Braatz held that R.C. 3109.051 governs visitation rights while R.C. 3109.04 "governs agreements allocating `parental rights and responsibilities' * * *." Id . at 44. Because appellee in the present case was named the residential parent of the minor children, we must conclude that R.C. 3109.051 applied to the proceedings before the lower court.