In re K.R.H.

2026 Ohio 583

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 30587
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re K.R.H., 2026-Ohio-583.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

IN RE: K.R.H. AND C.H. : : C.A. No. 30587 : : Trial Court Case Nos. G-2018-001688- : 1J,10; G-2018-001689-1G,1L : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & OPINION ...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on February 20, 2026, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings

consistent with the opinion.

Costs to be paid as follows: 50% by appellant and 50% by appellee.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30587

NATHAN D. BOONE, Attorney for Appellant E.T., Appellee, Pro Se

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} Father appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common

Pleas, Juvenile Division, modifying his parenting time with his son, C.H., to the Standard

Order of Parenting Time and with his daughter, K.R.H., to therapy sessions only, with future

modifications at the therapist’s discretion. For the following reasons, the trial court’s

judgment as to C.H. is affirmed, the judgment as to K.R.H. is reversed, and the matter is

remanded for further proceedings.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} The parties are the unmarried parents of two minor children, C.H. (born August

14, 2015) and K.R.H. (born June 6, 2008). The parenting time schedule for C.H. alternated

every other week. For example, one week C.H. would be with Mother from Monday to

Tuesday, with Father from Tuesday to Friday, with Mother until the following Thursday, and

with Father from Thursday until Sunday, and this schedule would rotate the following week.

K.R.H.’s parenting time with Father took place during biweekly counseling sessions. On

November 21, 2023, Father filed a motion for change of custody. On December 27, 2023,

Mother filed a motion for change of parenting time. The trial court appointed a guardian ad

litem (“GAL”), and a trial was held on April 12, 2024.

{¶ 3} Prior to the trial, on April 9, 2024, the GAL, Michael Porter, filed his report and

recommendations. The GAL explained that in preparation for issuing his recommendations,

he reviewed the relevant case history, including the prior GAL report, school records for both

2 children, text messages between Father and Mother, and a letter from Carrie A. Phillips,

LISW (the therapist treating Father and K.R.H.). In the letter, Phillips wrote that she had

been ill for an extended period, which interfered with her ability to conduct regular therapy

sessions with Father and K.R.H. The GAL also interviewed Father, Mother, C.H., K.R.H.,

and C.H.’s teacher. He stated that he attempted to contact Phillips to discuss this matter but

was unsuccessful.

{¶ 4} During his interview, Father informed the GAL that he and K.R.H. had previously

gotten into an argument, which resulted in K.R.H. not wanting to spend time with Father

outside of their therapy sessions with Phillips. Although Father and K.R.H. had been

attending therapy together, Father stated that Phillips’s health issues significantly limited her

availability, which in turn limited Father’s time with K.R.H. With respect to C.H., Father stated

that they have a positive relationship and he participates in as many of C.H.’s activities as

possible.

{¶ 5} During Mother’s interview with the GAL, she expressed that K.R.H. is old

enough to decide whether she wants to visit Father. Mother also stated that she wished to

modify Father’s parenting time with C.H. to the Standard Order of Parenting Time (“SOPT”).

She emphasized the need for more consistency, and stated that the current schedule was

confusing and stressful for C.H. C.H.’s teacher reported that both parents were involved in

C.H.’s schooling and corresponded with her regularly regarding C.H. She further stated to

the GAL that she believed that both parents were looking out for C.H.’s best interests.

{¶ 6} As to the children, the GAL reported that C.H. was friendly, happy, and enjoyed

spending time in both Father and Mother’s homes. C.H. also informed the GAL that he would

like to spend equal amounts of time with each parent. The GAL met with K.R.H. on two

occasions – once at Mother’s home and once at Centerville High School where K.R.H. was

3 enrolled. K.R.H. described prior arguments between her and Father and told the GAL that

she does not mind when Father texts her, as long as he does not do it excessively. She

expressed that counseling with Father and Phillips was “ok,” but seemed more open to the

idea of spending time with Father at dinner or another activity.

{¶ 7} Based upon his review of the case history and the interviews he conducted, the

GAL opined that it would be in C.H.’s best interest to remain in Mother’s custody where he

is established in the school district, has friends, and participates in activities. However, the

GAL also acknowledged that the current schedule bred inconsistency and recommended a

schedule where the same two weekdays are allocated to each parent, with alternating

weekends. He reasoned that this would allow C.H. to adjust to the schedule without

constantly wondering which house he is going to after school each day. With respect to

K.R.H., the GAL expressed concern regarding the lack of consistent therapy and how that

impacted parenting time between Father and K.R.H. Accordingly, the GAL recommended

that, on weeks when there is not a therapy session, Father and K.R.H. should spend time

together at dinner or another activity to help them build a better relationship.

{¶ 8} Both parties appeared for the trial on April 12, 2024. On April 16, 2024, the

magistrate issued an order that Father’s parenting time with C.H. be subject to the SOPT.

The magistrate further ordered that Father’s parenting time with K.R.H. continue to be limited

to therapy sessions with Phillips and that any modification of that time would be at Phillips’s

direction. Father filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, and on July 18, 2025, the trial

court issued an order overruling Father’s objections as to parenting time with C.H. and

K.R.H.

{¶ 9} Father appeals from the trial court’s judgment, raising two assignments of error.

Mother did not file a responsive brief.

4 II. Appellate Review

{¶ 10} In matters of parenting time, we accord a trial court broad discretion, and its

decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Shoenfelt v. Shoenfelt, 2009-

Ohio-6594, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). The term “abuse of discretion” implies that the court’s attitude is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219

(1983). “It is to be expected, however, that most instances of abuse of discretion will result

in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or

arbitrary.” State v. Malloy, 2012-Ohio-2664, ¶ 24 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 11} When modifying parenting time, a trial court considers the factors set forth

in R.C. 3109.051(D) and then determines, using its sound discretion, the parenting schedule

in the best interest of the children. In re E.R., 2022-Ohio-3658, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing Braatz

v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40, 45 (1999). These factors include the prior interaction and

interrelationships of the child and parents; the location of each parent’s residence; the child

and parents’ available time; the age of the child; the child’s adjustment to home, school, and

community; the child’s wishes; the health and safety of the child; the amount of time that will

be available for the child to spend with siblings; the mental and physical health of all parties;

each parent’s willingness to reschedule missed time; the criminal history of the parents

involving acts that resulted in a child being abused or neglected; whether either parent has

continuously and willfully denied the other parent’s right to parenting time; whether either

parent has established or plans to establish an out-of-state residence; and any other factor

in the best interest of the child. Braatz at 45; R.C. 3109.051(D).

{¶ 12} When evaluating whether a modification is in a child’s best interest,

R.C. 3109.04 identifies various factors for a trial court to “consider” when exercising its

discretion and making this determination. Palichat v. Palichat, 2019-Ohio-1379, ¶ 28

5 (2d Dist.); see, e.g., Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 2014-Ohio-4604, ¶ 32 (2d Dist.). The trial

court, however, is not obligated to recite or discuss any factors individually. Id. The critical

issue is whether the record supports the trial court’s conclusions and whether it explained

its best-interest determination sufficiently. Palichat at ¶ 33-36 (finding that the record

supported the trial court’s explanation for its best-interest determination despite its failure to

discuss each best-interest factor by name); Doane v. Doane, 2001 WL 474267, *6 (5th Dist.

May 2, 2001) (noting that R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) “does not require the court to make

independent findings on each of the . . . factors” and that “a silent record raises the

presumption that a trial court considered the factors”).

{¶ 13} Further, “[a] trial court is not bound to follow the recommendations of a

guardian ad litem.” In re E.M.W., 2009-Ohio-3016, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). “The trial court should

review the report of a guardian ad litem ‘in connection with all other evidence presented to

it.’ The trial court, as the trier of fact, determines the credibility of, and weight to be given to,

the report.” Id., quoting Smith v. Quigg, 2006-Ohio-1495, ¶ 66 (5th Dist.).

A. Father’s Parenting Time with C.H.

{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Father claims that the trial court abused its

discretion in modifying Father’s parenting time with C.H. to the SOPT, rejecting the GAL’s

recommendation, and reducing Father’s time without proper findings under

R.C. 3109.051(D).

{¶ 15} The evidence establishes that the most significant concerns for both parties

and the GAL regarding Father’s parenting time with C.H. were consistency and predictability

for C.H. Mother testified that she wanted fewer transitions throughout the week for C.H. and

expressed that the SOPT would provide a more consistent schedule. Although Mother

acknowledged that the SOPT would slightly reduce Father’s overall parenting time with C.H.,

6 she testified that this was not her objective. Rather, she stated that her motivation for

requesting implementation of the SOPT was increased stability for C.H. Similarly, the GAL

testified that the schedule he proposed in his report and recommendation would allow more

consistency for C.H. The GAL stated, “So I think if we can identify standard days per parent,

I think that would solidify – or simplify that for [C.H.]. Plus [C.H.] has expressed a desire to

want to spend equal time with both parents.” Father also testified that he was aware of the

GAL’s recommendation as to C.H. and agreed with it.

{¶ 16} Upon review, this Court cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion

when it modified Father’s parenting time with C.H. to the SOPT. Mother, Father, and the

GAL testified as to C.H.’s need for a more predictable and reliable schedule. Under the

SOPT, the parties will alternate every weekend, and Father will have parenting time with

C.H. on Wednesday evenings. Although the GAL recommended designating two specific

weekdays for each parent, the SOPT varies only slightly from that recommendation and still

remedies the parties’ concerns regarding consistency. Additionally, the trial court adequately

considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.051(D). In its ruling, the trial court listed the

factors and identified the relevant evidence or testimony presented with respect to each one.

The trial court concluded its analysis of these factors finding that it is in the best interest of

C.H. for the SOPT to be implemented. It reasoned, “The testimony provided indicates the

current Parenting Time schedule causes confusion and difficulty for the child and that the

Standard Order would provide more consistency.”

{¶ 17} Accordingly, we find that the record supports the trial court’s modification of

Father’s parenting time with C.H. to the SOPT. Father’s first assignment of error is overruled.

B. Father’s Parenting Time with K.R.H.

{¶ 18} In his second assignment of error, Father asserts that the trial court abused its

7 discretion in limiting Father’s parenting time with K.R.H. to therapy sessions only with

modifications at the therapist’s discretion, rejecting the GAL’s recommendation for additional

parenting time, and improperly delegating judicial authority to a third party.

{¶ 19} Father testified that going to counseling together seemed to be helping his

relationship with K.R.H. Although they were supposed to attend counseling together every

other Friday, they had not been able to attend regular counseling sessions for several

months due to the counselor’s health issues. When the counseling sessions did not take

place, Father did not see K.R.H. When asked about the GAL’s recommendation that he and

K.R.H. go to dinner or another activity on weeks when Phillips is unavailable for counseling,

Father testified that he liked that recommendation. Father acknowledged that under the trial

court’s previous order, he was allowed to take K.R.H. alone after two therapy sessions. He

testified, though, that he had not done so because Phillips expressed concern that K.R.H.

might make accusations against Father if they were alone. Father also stated that he would

like to communicate with K.R.H. more often, but she has expressed that she does not want

that right now and he wants to respect her wishes.

{¶ 20} In addition, Father testified that K.R.H. had been texting his mother (K.R.H.’s

paternal grandmother) more frequently, wanting to see her. He believed that including

K.R.H.’s paternal grandmother in their dinner or activity plans would help improve his

relationship with K.R.H. and keep the situation peaceful. Notably, both Mother and Father

acknowledged that K.R.H.’s paternal grandmother attends sporting events for both children;

Mother regularly sends the paternal grandmother pictures and updates about the children;

and Mother never discourages the children from interacting and spending time with their

paternal grandmother or Father’s other family members. Mother also testified that if the trial

8 court were to order K.R.H. to attend dinner with Father on weeks when they do not have

therapy, she would “absolutely” make sure that K.R.H. attends.

{¶ 21} On the record before us, we cannot ascertain the basis of the trial court’s

decision regarding Father’s parenting time with K.R.H. Rather, the record reflects that

although counseling has been helpful, Phillips’s health issues and other personal matters

have made regular sessions difficult to schedule. In fact, Phillips herself acknowledged in

her letter to the GAL that her health issues interfered with her ability to schedule regular

therapy sessions. Further, Father, Mother, K.R.H., and K.R.H.’s paternal grandmother have

agreed that when therapy sessions are not possible, it would be beneficial for Father, K.R.H.,

and K.R.H.’s paternal grandmother to have dinner together or spend time together doing

another activity. Mother, Father, and K.R.H.’s paternal grandmother have all agreed to help

facilitate that plan, as well. Therefore, we find that the record does not support the trial court’s

finding that Father’s parenting time with K.R.H. should be limited to therapy sessions with

Phillips. This arrangement has resulted in Father having no contact with K.R.H. for months

at a time, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that this serves K.R.H.’s best interest.

{¶ 22} The record is also devoid of sufficient analysis in support of the trial court’s

order that any modification to Father’s parenting time with K.R.H. must be solely within

Phillips’s discretion. Phillips has been unable to conduct regular therapy sessions with

Father and K.R.H., resulting in Father having no time with his daughter. Without therapy

sessions, it would be difficult for Phillips to make additional recommendations. There is no

alternative plan in place when therapy is missed. Mother and Father both testified that K.R.H.

and her paternal grandmother have a positive relationship, and Father stated that she would

be willing to join him and K.R.H. during dinner or another activity when therapy is not

possible. Accordingly, it appears that this arrangement would address Phillips’s concern that

9 Father and K.R.H. not spend time together alone. We find nothing in the record to support

the trial court’s conclusion that it is in K.R.H.’s best interest for Father’s parenting time to be

determined by Phillips. Because the record in this matter does not support the trial court’s

judgment regarding Father’s parenting time with K.R.H., we find that the trial court abused

its discretion with respect to this issue. Therefore, Father’s second assignment of error is

sustained.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 23} The trial court’s judgment as to C.H. is affirmed. The trial court’s judgment as

to K.R.H. is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

.............

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.