[Cite as Garrett v. Kronk, 2025-Ohio-783.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
ROY GARRETT, : CASE NO. CA2024-05-010 Appellee, : OPINION : 03/10/2025 - vs - :
ASHLEY KRONK, :
Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 20940091
Roy Garrett, pro se.
Rachel B. Caldwell, for appellant.
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ashley Kronk ("Mother"), appeals the decision of the Madison
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating a shared parenting plan
and designating appellee, Roy Garrett ("Father"), the residential parent and legal
custodian of their child. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the juvenile court's Madison CA2024-05-010
decision.
{¶ 2} The parties are the biological parents of N.R.G. ("Natalie"), who was born
in January 2009.1 Mother and Father were never married to each other. Parental rights
and responsibilities for Natalie were allocated between the parties pursuant to a shared
parenting plan ("SPP"), which was filed with the juvenile court on August 6, 2009. At the
time the SPP was originally filed, Mother and Father shared equal parenting time with
Natalie. Both parties were identified as the residential parent and legal custodian, and
Father was designated the residential parent for school purposes.
{¶ 3} Throughout the life of the case, Mother and Father agreed to modify the
provisions of the SPP. The most recent modification, filed with the juvenile court in
December 2018, provided that Father had parenting time from 6:00 p.m. on Mondays
until 6:00 p.m. on Wednesdays; Mother had parenting time from 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesdays until 6:00 p.m. on Fridays; and the parties alternated weekend parenting
time.
{¶ 4} In March 2023, Father moved the trial court to find Mother in contempt of
court. In his motion, Father alleged that Mother prevented Father from exercising his
parenting time on several occasions between September 2022 and February 2023, and
that she was interfering with his communication with Natalie. After a hearing, the juvenile
court found Mother in contempt. As a result of Mother's contempt, the juvenile court
suspended the existing parenting schedule and awarded Father additional parenting time
between May and August 2023. Four of those weeks were to be exercised by Father
without interruption from Mother. For the remaining weeks, Mother could exercise
parenting time on alternating weekends, while the remaining parenting time was allocated
1. Natalie is a fictitious name for N.R.G., which we will use throughout the opinion for readability purposes. -2- Madison CA2024-05-010
to Father.
{¶ 5} Shortly after the parenting schedule set forth in the SPP resumed, Mother
moved the juvenile court for the emergency custody of Natalie. In her motion, Mother
claimed that Natalie did not want to go to Father's house for his parenting time and that
Natalie was not safe at Father's home. According to Mother, Natalie had expressed that
Father had threatened to "'beat the shit out of [Natalie]' with a belt" and screamed at her
nonstop. Mother claimed she was in fear for Natalie's safety, and that Natalie had
developed anxiety and depression due to "these circumstances." Mother filed an
additional motion for custody the same day, in which she requested that she be granted
full custody of Natalie.
{¶ 6} The juvenile court denied Mother's motion for emergency custody and the
matter proceeded to a final hearing on the remaining custody dispute. At the hearing, the
juvenile court heard testimony from Mother, Father, Father's wife ("Stepmother"), and
Jeremy Collins, the father of Mother's younger child.
{¶ 7} The testimony presented at the hearing revealed that Mother desires full
custody of Natalie and believes that it is in Natalie's best interest to be with Mother full-
time. Mother is concerned with Father's parenting of Natalie and testified that the time
Natalie spends with Father is negatively impacting her physical and mental health.
According to Mother, Natalie has described Father grabbing her, threatening to beat her
with a belt, and screaming at her all day long. Natalie has also expressed that she no
longer wants to be at Father's home, oftentimes cries before Father's parenting time, and
has threatened to kill herself to avoid going to his home. Mother wants to keep Natalie
safe and believes less time with Father is the best way to achieve that goal.
{¶ 8} Mother described her relationship with Natalie as great and noted that
Natalie does not have the same emotional response to parenting time with Mother as she
-3- Madison CA2024-05-010
does to her parenting time with Father. Natalie has a good relationship with Mother's
family and is comfortable and adjusted to Mother's home. Mother testified that Natalie
does not share a good relationship with Father or Stepmother and is not adjusted to their
home.
{¶ 9} Mother stated that Natalie complains of Father's frequent interrogation
regarding the instant court proceedings and his lack of inquiry into her feelings. Although
Mother denied involving Natalie in the court proceedings, she told Natalie she is seeking
full custody and that "very soon, [Natalie] would get what she want[s]."
{¶ 10} At the time of the hearing, Natalie attended London High School and had
As, Bs, and Cs in her classes. Mother testified that Natalie's grades had significantly
declined and that she was struggling socially. Mother attributed Natalie's struggles to the
problems she is having at Father's. If Mother was deemed the residential parent for
school purposes, Mother testified Natalie could change school districts or engage in
homeschooling if she desired. According to Mother, Natalie had expressed such a desire
due to how "bad and hard" school has become.
{¶ 11} Mother testified that pickups from Father's have become contentious,
including one occasion where Mother was a few minutes late and Father "flipped [her]
off," and other occasions where Natalie ran out the door crying. Father acknowledged
one instance where Natalie left his home crying but claimed the remainder of Mother's
testimony in this regard was "all made up."
{¶ 12} Regarding the contempt proceedings, the testimony revealed that Natalie
did not spend any time at Father's home from October 2022 until April 2023. Mother
testified that, during that time, Natalie did not want to go to Father's because of "the things
that he had said. He had backhanded her in the mouth and called her some names."
According to Mother, when she and Natalie informed Father that Natalie did not want to
-4- Madison CA2024-05-010
go to his home anymore, Father threatened Natalie, telling her she was "going to juvie,"
and that her "mom's going to jail."
{¶ 13} After Mother was found in contempt, Natalie returned to Father's for several
weeks between May 2023 and August 2023. Initially, Natalie was upset and threatened
to kill herself if she had to return to Father's. Natalie was later taken to the hospital by
her maternal grandmother, where she recanted her threat of self-harm and informed the
doctor she was "just mad" at the time. According to Mother, since the contempt
proceedings, she has facilitated a relationship between Father and Natalie.
{¶ 14} In April 2023, Natalie began counseling. At the time of the hearing, Natalie
did not have any formal mental health diagnosis from her counselor, though both parties
agreed counseling was beneficial for Natalie. The counseling appointments were initially
held after school on Tuesdays, during Father's parenting time, but were later moved to
during school on Thursdays, during Mother's parenting time. Father adamantly opposed
Natalie attending counseling during the school day, and the appointments were eventually
changed to Thursday evenings. Mother claimed the counseling appointments were
rescheduled because Father complained of taking Natalie to the appointments and that
he constantly interrogated Natalie regarding the sessions. Father denied complaining of
the appointments and conversely testified that Mother unilaterally changed the
appointments to occur during her parenting time in an effort to control the situation and
influence Natalie's conversations with her counselor. Father testified that he never
missed a counseling appointment while they were during his parenting time and that
Natalie was uncomfortable with Mother's behavior at those appointments.
{¶ 15} Mother has significant concerns regarding Natalie's mental health.
According to Mother, Natalie's time at Father's has a direct adverse impact on her mental
health and Natalie has "completely changed." Mother testified that when Natalie returns
-5- Madison CA2024-05-010
from Father's home "it's nothing but breakdowns" and Natalie refuses to sleep in her own
bed or without Mother. Father testified he has minor concerns regarding Natalie's mental
health, which stem from the back and forth between him and Mother. According to Father,
Natalie's counselor indicated Natalie is doing "phenomenal[ly]," which leads Father to
believe Natalie's mental health is "probably okay." Regardless of her progress in
counseling, both parties testified that Natalie is under a lot of stress due to the instant
proceedings.
{¶ 16} There was significant testimony at the hearing pertaining to Natalie's cell
phones and her ability to use those phones while at Mother's home. According to the
parties, Natalie has two phones, one purchased by Mother and one purchased by Father.
After the contempt proceedings, Natalie was to select one phone to utilize at both homes.
Although the parties agreed that Natalie selected Father's phone to use and travel
between Mother and Father's, Natalie's phone from Mother's remained active and in use
while Natalie was at Mother's home. Neither Father nor Stepmother can contact Natalie
on the phone that Mother provides.
{¶ 17} Both parties testified that Father presently does not allow the phone he
provides to go to Mother's home. Father explained that he implemented such a rule after
learning Mother was using the phone to repeatedly call the father of her younger child.
Father presented evidence that, prior to this recent change, his phone for Natalie was not
used while she was at Mother's home. Father claimed this was because Mother does not
allow open access to the phone Father provides while Natalie is at Mother's home and
instead keeps the phone away from Natalie unless Father calls. The lack of contact with
Natalie while at Mother's home is frustrating to Father and Stepmother.
{¶ 18} Mother testified that some of the issues between her and Father could be
fixed with better communication, and that she was willing to work on their communication
-6- Madison CA2024-05-010
via counseling. Notwithstanding this testimony, Mother later acknowledged that, despite
Father's request, she refused to communicate with Father via AppClose. Although
Mother believed that speaking through AppClose would facilitate communication between
the parties, she was unwilling to utilize the program unless it was court ordered.
{¶ 19} During his testimony, Father stated that he and Natalie have a good
relationship and that she is likewise bonded with Stepmother and their six-year-old son.
Father testified that he and Natalie are best friends, and described the activities they do
together, including going on vacations, spending time at the lake, and riding motorcycles.
Father explained that he was happy with the current parenting-time schedule, but if it had
to change, he would like Natalie to live with him. Father believes Mother lives in a state
of chaos, in which she moves frequently and introduces new people into Natalie's life.
Father, on the other hand, has lived in the same house for eight years and has been
married to Stepmother for ten years.
{¶ 20} Father testified that he has some flexibility with his work schedule as a
business owner but that he works outside the home. Stepmother is a stay-at-home mom,
which allows her to transport Natalie to and from school and to pick up Natalie from
Mother's house. According to Father, Stepmother and Natalie enjoy this time together
and it reduces Father's interactions with Mother, which tend to go poorly. Stepmother
similarly testified that she enjoys this time with Natalie, and that Natalie has never
complained about Stepmother's involvement.
{¶ 21} Father further testified that he does not believe a change in school districts
would be beneficial to Natalie, nor does he agree that Natalie is struggling in school, either
academically or socially. According to Father, although Natalie's friend group may have
changed after she did not make the volleyball team, Natalie remains social. Father
testified Natalie has several friends who spend time at their home and that she went to
-7- Madison CA2024-05-010
the homecoming dance with a group of friends. Stepmother similarly testified that she is
not concerned with Natalie's social life. Both Father and Stepmother believe Natalie is
doing great in school and, aside from a few missing assignments, Father is not concerned
with Natalie's grades. Father attributes any decrease in her academic performance to
her transition from grade school to high school.
{¶ 22} Father denied having any physical altercations with Natalie or that he has
done anything more than threaten to "whip her butt," which he described as a "father
correcting their child." Stepmother likewise testified she has never seen Father use any
type of "hands-on or corporal punishment" with Natalie. Father, however, acknowledged
that he engaged in a physical altercation with Mother's ex-boyfriend after one of Natalie's
basketball games. According to Father, he and Mother's ex-boyfriend were bickering in
the parking lot after Natalie's basketball game. The encounter quickly turned physical,
and Father struck Mother's ex-boyfriend. As a result of the incident, Father was charged
with and pled guilty to disorderly conduct.
{¶ 23} Father testified that he asked Natalie about her alleged desire to live with
Mother full time. Father explained he was "blindsided" when he received Mother's motion
for emergency custody, as things quickly returned to "normal" after the contempt
proceedings and Natalie was happy. Father claimed Natalie denied stating she wanted
to live with Mother full-time and that Natalie was upset that she had to return to court for
an in-camera interview. Father stated he has tried "absolutely everything" to co-parent
with Mother, including forgoing contempt proceedings to avoid hurting Natalie.
Notwithstanding his attempts, Father believes Mother will always find a way to make
things difficult. He considers Mother to be very controlling and manipulative when it
comes to her time with Natalie.
{¶ 24} Stepmother testified that she had been in Natalie's life for approximately 14
-8- Madison CA2024-05-010
years. Stepmother described her relationship with Natalie as "really close" and noted that
Natalie comes to her to talk about school, friends, and family. Natalie also confides in
Stepmother about the stress she feels from her parents' inability to get along.
{¶ 25} Stepmother further testified that she and Jeremy Collins, Mother's ex-
boyfriend and the father of Mother's younger child, have an arrangement where
Stepmother babysits Mother's younger child for approximately six hours on Tuesdays.
During that time, Natalie can spend time with her younger sister, which is a relationship
that is important to all parties. According to Stepmother, Natalie shares a close
relationship with her younger siblings, and enjoys spending time with Father's extended
family members, including Collins and her younger sister, at family events and parties.
{¶ 26} Collins testified on behalf of Father. During his testimony, Collins stated
that he was in a relationship with Mother for several years and had lived with Mother and
Natalie when Natalie was approximately 11 or 12 years old. During that time, Mother and
Father followed the same parenting time schedule that was in place at the time of trial.
Collins testified that Mother is "a very good manipulator," and that the "biggest thing" is
Mother's emotional treatment of Natalie. According to Collins, Mother uses Natalie as a
weapon or a tool to gain an advantage over him or Father and oftentimes involves Natalie
in their disputes.
{¶ 27} Collins testified to the communication challenges he and Father experience
while trying to co-parent with Mother. According to Collins, "there is really no . . . positive
communication" or "back and forth" with Mother. Instead, "it's either her way, or she won't
have any part of it." Collins stated that Mother takes a similar approach to scheduling
appointments, in that, "if it's not what [Mother] suggested, like, down to the tee, she's not
happy with it, period, end of story." According to Collins, co-parenting with Mother is
difficult due to the lack of communication.
-9- Madison CA2024-05-010
{¶ 28} At the close of Mother's case, the juvenile court interviewed Natalie in
chambers. The juvenile court interviewed Natalie a second time after Father rested his
case. We have reviewed Natalie's in-camera discussions with the juvenile court.
{¶ 29} On March 18, 2024, the juvenile court issued a journal entry finding it was
in Natalie's best interest to terminate the SPP, terminate Father's child support obligation,
and name Father the legal custodian and residential parent for all purposes, including
school placement.2 In so doing, the juvenile court discussed the applicable R.C.
3109.04(F) factors and found that shared parenting is not in the best interest of Natalie.
The juvenile court noted that Mother has continued her controlling behavior and refuses
to recognize Father's rights as an equal parent. The juvenile court further noted that there
is a significant lack of communication between the parties, largely due to Mother's
behavior. The juvenile court specifically found that Mother was evasive in her answers
on cross-examination and that her testimony lacked credibility. The court further found
the testimony of Father, Stepmother, and Collins to be credible.
{¶ 30} Mother now appeals, raising the following assignment of error for our
review:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING APPELLEE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD AS THE DECISION IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILD.
{¶ 31} In her assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court's decision
finding it was in the child's best interest to designate Father the residential parent and
legal custodian was an abuse of discretion in that it was against the manifest weight of
2. The juvenile court did not alter the existing parenting time schedule and ordered Father to exercise parenting time from 6:00 p.m. on Mondays until 6:00 p.m. on Wednesdays; Mother to exercise parenting time from 6:00 p.m. on Wednesdays until 6:00 p.m. on Fridays; and that the parties would alternate weekend parenting time. - 10 - Madison CA2024-05-010
the evidence. We disagree.
{¶ 32} An appellate court reviews a lower court's custody determination for an
abuse of discretion. In re S.K., 2014-Ohio-563, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). An abuse of discretion
implies that the court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. In re
B.K., 2011-Ohio-4470, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.), citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217,
219 (1983). The discretion that a lower court enjoys in custody matters "'should be
accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the
court's determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned.'" In re J.M., 2009-
Ohio-4824, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.), quoting Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988). "[A]n
appellate court affords deference to a judge or magistrate's findings regarding witnesses'
credibility." In re D.R., 2006-Ohio-340, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 33} As noted above, Mother argues the juvenile court's decision designating
Father the child's residential parent and legal custodian was against the manifest weight
of the evidence. A manifest weight of the evidence challenge concerns "'the inclination
of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the
issue rather than the other.'" Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12, quoting State v.
Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52, ¶ 24. "In reviewing the manifest weight of the evidence, this
court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of
witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact
clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment
must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Brown v. Brown, 2019-Ohio-2164, ¶ 30 (12th
Dist.), citing Eastley at ¶ 20. "[R]eversing a judgment on manifest weight grounds should
only be done in exceptional circumstances, when the evidence weighs heavily against
the judgment." Jones v. Wall, 2016-Ohio-2780, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.), citing In re G.S., 2006-
Ohio-2530, ¶ 4 (10th Dist.).
- 11 - Madison CA2024-05-010
{¶ 34} Pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(d), upon terminating a shared parenting
plan, the juvenile court shall issue a modified decree for the allocation of parental rights
and responsibilities as if no shared parenting plan had ever been granted and as if no
request for shared parenting had ever been made. Thompson v. Cannon, 2015-Ohio-
2893, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). The juvenile court must then "designate one parent the residential
parent and legal custodian of the child 'in a manner consistent with the best interest of
the child.'" Harmon v. Radcliff, 2017-Ohio-8682, ¶ 42 (12th Dist.), quoting R.C.
3109.04(A)(1).
{¶ 35} To determine the best interest of the child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the
juvenile court to consider all relevant factors. In re X.B., 2015-Ohio-1174, ¶ 19 (12th
Dist.). The best interest factors are set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a) thru (j). These best
interest factors include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) the wishes of the parents;
(2) the child's wishes, as expressed to the court in chambers;
(3) the child's interactions and interrelationships with parents, siblings, and other persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(4) the child's adjustment to home, school, and community;
(5) the mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation;
(6) the parent more likely to honor and facilitate visitation;
(7) whether one parent has denied the other of parenting time;
(8) whether child support orders have been followed; and
(9) whether either parent has established or is planning to establish a residence outside of Ohio.
"[N]o single factor is determinative of the best interest of a child; rather, the determination
should be made in light of the totality of the circumstances." Blessing v. Blessing, 2019-
- 12 - Madison CA2024-05-010
Ohio-3951, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 36} On appeal, Mother does not challenge the juvenile court's decision to
terminate the SPP. Instead, Mother claims that after balancing the factors of R.C.
3109.04(F) and weighing the evidence presented at the hearing, the juvenile court should
have awarded custody of Natalie to Mother, not Father. In support of her argument,
Mother highlights certain contradictory statements throughout Father's testimony, as well
as favorable statements testified to by Mother and her belief that Natalie's wishes weigh
in Mother's favor. After our review of the entire record, including Natalie's in-camera
interviews, we find no merit to Mother's claims.
{¶ 37} Regarding the inconsistencies noted by Mother on appeal, we acknowledge
that the witnesses offered conflicting testimony as to various topics, including Natalie's
performance at school; Natalie's relationship with Father, including his alleged violent
behavior toward her; and Stepmother's involvement in Natalie's day-to-day activities. But,
as this court has routinely held, the juvenile court was in the best position to resolve these
conflicts in the testimony. Kelch v. Kelch, 2004-Ohio-5647, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). After
considering the foregoing conflicting testimony presented at the hearing, the juvenile court
specifically found Father and his witnesses to be more credible than Mother. This court
will not second-guess the trial court's decision or substitute its judgment for that of the
trial court. Hall v. Hall, 2019-Ohio-81, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). This is because the trial court
was in the best position to view the witnesses, observe their demeanor, gestures and
voice inflections, and to use those observations in weighing the credibility of the
witnesses' testimony. Id., citing McBride v. McBride, 2012-Ohio-2146, ¶ 11. In
determining what weight to assign to the witnesses' testimony, the trial court was free to
believe all, part, or none of their testimony. Id.
{¶ 38} In its decision, the juvenile court made numerous findings related to the best
- 13 - Madison CA2024-05-010
interest factors. Having thoroughly reviewed the record before us, we conclude that the
findings made by the juvenile court were supported by competent and credible evidence.
We likewise conclude that there was ample evidence in the record, if believed, to support
the juvenile court's decision to terminate shared parenting and name Father Natalie's
legal custodian and residential parent. This includes evidence that Mother is unwilling to
communicate and cooperate with Father, does not encourage or facilitate a relationship
between Natalie and Father, and is overtly controlling and manipulative to the detriment
of Natalie. There was also evidence that Mother has a history of involving Natalie in her
disputes with Father and other paramours, and has implied ulterior motives for seeking
{¶ 39} Relying heavily on her own testimony as to what she believes would be in
the child's best interest, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in its weighing of the
relevant best interest factors. In support, Mother claims the juvenile court did not give
enough weight to her testimony that she is responsible for most of Natalie's day-to-day
care, that Natalie is afraid of Father and wishes to live with Mother, that Natalie's mental
health suffers from her time spent with Father, and that Natalie is not bonded with Father
or his family members. However, as this court has stated previously, it is the role of the
juvenile court, not this court, to determine the relative weight to assign to each factor when
determining the child's best interest. Bonifield v. Bonifield, 2021-Ohio-95, ¶ 12 (12th
Dist.).
{¶ 40} The juvenile court explicitly discussed each relevant factor in its journal
entry and clearly gave great weight to Mother's detrimental behavior discussed above.
Despite Mother's dissatisfaction with the juvenile court's decision, this court should not,
and will not, second-guess the juvenile court's decision in regard to the appropriate weight
to be given to any one of those factors. Mack v. Mack, 2019-Ohio-2379, ¶ 33 (12th Dist.),
- 14 - Madison CA2024-05-010
citing In re A.B., 2010-Ohio-2823, ¶ 35 (12th Dist.). This includes the weight given to the
wishes of Natalie, which she privately expressed to the judge in chambers. See, e.g., In
re R.L.S., 2014-Ohio-3294, ¶ 32 (12th Dist.) ("a child's wishes are not controlling upon
the trial court and are only one of among several factors a trial court considers when
determining what is in the child's best interest").
{¶ 41} It is clear that Mother believes Natalie would benefit from less time with
Father. However, "[w]hile a parent's wishes about the care and control of his or her
children must be considered by the court, 'the parent's wishes should not be placed before
a child's best interest.'" Hall, 2019-Ohio-81 at ¶ 22, quoting Harrold v. Collier, 2005-Ohio-
5334, ¶ 44. The juvenile court, just as this court on appeal, must act in a way that places
Natalie's best interest above all else. In this case, the record properly before this court
reflects that Natalie would benefit from a relationship with both Mother and Father, and
that the best way to foster such relationships is by designating Father Natalie's legal
custodian and residential parent. Therefore, when considering the record before this
court, the juvenile court's decision terminating the SPP and designating Father the
residential parent and legal custodian of their child is supported by the manifest weight of
the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
{¶ 42} Accordingly, finding no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's decision,
Mother's assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 43} Judgment affirmed.
BYRNE, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
- 15 -