[Cite as J.L. v. T.L., 2016-Ohio-7109.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
James Legg Court of Appeals No. WD-16-019
Appellant Trial Court No. 2012DS0139
v.
Tiffany Legg DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellee Decided: September 30, 2016
*****
Michael B. Kelley, for appellant.
YARBROUGH, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, J.L. (“father”), appeals the judgment of the Wood County Court
of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting appellee’s, T.L. (“mother”),
motion to terminate shared parenting and change custody. Finding no error, we affirm. A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Father and mother were married in April 2010, and had three children
together. In October 2012, the parties were divorced and father was named the
residential parent and legal custodian of the children. At that time, mother was awarded
parenting time pursuant to a shared parenting plan that was attached to, and made part of,
the trial court’s decree of dissolution. Under the shared parenting plan, father and mother
would rotate time with the children every five days. Due to the shared parenting
arrangement, no child support was ordered.
{¶ 3} Almost three years later, on July 1, 2015, mother filed a motion to terminate
the shared parenting plan and for a change of custody. In the motion, mother alleged that
father had been charged with several offenses since the decree of dissolution was issued,
including operating a vehicle under the influence, possession of drug abuse
paraphernalia, failure to reinstate license, disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana,
and speeding. In light of this alleged change in circumstances, mother asserted that the
shared parenting plan should be terminated and she should be named the residential and
custodial parent.
{¶ 4} A hearing on mother’s motion was held before a magistrate on November
18, 2015. Several witnesses testified at the hearing, including father, father’s fiancé,
father’s friend, mother, and mother’s husband. In general, the testimony offered at the
hearing centered on father’s promotion and usage of marijuana, as well as his criminal
record. While father admitted to using marijuana, he insisted that he never used drugs
around the children, and also stated that he recently stopped using marijuana for the
2. children’s sake. Father also conceded that he had driven the children without a valid
driver’s license to drop them off to mother. After hearing the evidence presented at the
hearing, the magistrate took the matter under advisement.
{¶ 5} Two weeks later, the magistrate issued her decision. In the decision, the
magistrate found that a change of circumstances had occurred since the trial court issued
its decree of dissolution. Consequently, the magistrate modified the prior custody
arrangement by naming mother as the residential parent and ordering father to pay child
support in the sum of $354.31 per month.
{¶ 6} Taking issue with the magistrate’s decision, father filed his objections with
the trial court, in which he argued that the decision was unlawful because there had been
no change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of the prior custody order
under R.C. 3109.04. Father also argued that a change in custody was not in the children’s
best interests.
{¶ 7} After receiving mother’s response to father’s objections, the trial court
issued its decision on March 25, 2016, in which it found that “the magistrate properly
found a change of circumstances and that the advantages of a change in environment is
warranted.” Thus, the court rejected father’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s
decision. Father’s timely appeal followed.
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 8} On appeal, father assigns the following errors for our review:
3. I. The trial court erred when it erroneously found that a change of
circumstances had occurred, and when it found that the harm caused by a
change of environment was outweighed by the advantages.
II. The trial court erred when it failed to properly apply the best
interest of the minor children factors as articulated on O.R.C. 3109.04.
III. The trial court erred by abusing its discretion when it named
Appellee the residential parent of the parties’ minor children as the court
erroneously found a change of circumstances/that the advantages of a
change outweighed the harm, did not properly apply the best interest
factors, and did not properly consider the facts in evidence especially the
court investigator’s report and recommendations.
II. Analysis
{¶ 9} Modification of a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities is
governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which states in relevant part:
The court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights
and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, based on facts
that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at
the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances
of the child, the child’s residential parent, or either of the parents subject to
a shared parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve
the best interest of the child. In applying these standards, the court shall
retain the residential parent designated by the prior decree or the prior
4. shared parenting decree, unless a modification is in the best interest of the
child and one of the following applies:
***
(iii) The harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.
{¶ 10} Additionally, it is well-established that in order to be considered a requisite
change in circumstances so as to trigger best interest analysis, an asserted change must be
demonstrated to be “of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change.” Davis v.
Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). We review the trial court’s
determination concerning an alleged change in circumstances for an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, such decisions may not be reversed absent a finding that the court’s judgment
was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, father argues that the trial court erred when
it found that a change of circumstances had occurred, and that the harm caused by a
change of environment was outweighed by the advantages. Specifically, father asserts
that his drug use was nothing new since it was known to the trial court prior to the
dissolution. Further, father contends that his “criminal behavior and anger issues were
not new as they also existed prior to the dissolution.”
{¶ 12} Having reviewed the testimony from the hearing on mother’s motion, we
find that father’s articulation of the facts is incomplete. Indeed, father agreed at the
hearing that the criminal activity with which he was charged took place after the
5. dissolution.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as J.L. v. T.L., 2016-Ohio-7109.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
James Legg Court of Appeals No. WD-16-019
Appellant Trial Court No. 2012DS0139
v.
Tiffany Legg DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellee Decided: September 30, 2016
*****
Michael B. Kelley, for appellant.
YARBROUGH, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, J.L. (“father”), appeals the judgment of the Wood County Court
of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting appellee’s, T.L. (“mother”),
motion to terminate shared parenting and change custody. Finding no error, we affirm. A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Father and mother were married in April 2010, and had three children
together. In October 2012, the parties were divorced and father was named the
residential parent and legal custodian of the children. At that time, mother was awarded
parenting time pursuant to a shared parenting plan that was attached to, and made part of,
the trial court’s decree of dissolution. Under the shared parenting plan, father and mother
would rotate time with the children every five days. Due to the shared parenting
arrangement, no child support was ordered.
{¶ 3} Almost three years later, on July 1, 2015, mother filed a motion to terminate
the shared parenting plan and for a change of custody. In the motion, mother alleged that
father had been charged with several offenses since the decree of dissolution was issued,
including operating a vehicle under the influence, possession of drug abuse
paraphernalia, failure to reinstate license, disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana,
and speeding. In light of this alleged change in circumstances, mother asserted that the
shared parenting plan should be terminated and she should be named the residential and
custodial parent.
{¶ 4} A hearing on mother’s motion was held before a magistrate on November
18, 2015. Several witnesses testified at the hearing, including father, father’s fiancé,
father’s friend, mother, and mother’s husband. In general, the testimony offered at the
hearing centered on father’s promotion and usage of marijuana, as well as his criminal
record. While father admitted to using marijuana, he insisted that he never used drugs
around the children, and also stated that he recently stopped using marijuana for the
2. children’s sake. Father also conceded that he had driven the children without a valid
driver’s license to drop them off to mother. After hearing the evidence presented at the
hearing, the magistrate took the matter under advisement.
{¶ 5} Two weeks later, the magistrate issued her decision. In the decision, the
magistrate found that a change of circumstances had occurred since the trial court issued
its decree of dissolution. Consequently, the magistrate modified the prior custody
arrangement by naming mother as the residential parent and ordering father to pay child
support in the sum of $354.31 per month.
{¶ 6} Taking issue with the magistrate’s decision, father filed his objections with
the trial court, in which he argued that the decision was unlawful because there had been
no change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of the prior custody order
under R.C. 3109.04. Father also argued that a change in custody was not in the children’s
best interests.
{¶ 7} After receiving mother’s response to father’s objections, the trial court
issued its decision on March 25, 2016, in which it found that “the magistrate properly
found a change of circumstances and that the advantages of a change in environment is
warranted.” Thus, the court rejected father’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s
decision. Father’s timely appeal followed.
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 8} On appeal, father assigns the following errors for our review:
3. I. The trial court erred when it erroneously found that a change of
circumstances had occurred, and when it found that the harm caused by a
change of environment was outweighed by the advantages.
II. The trial court erred when it failed to properly apply the best
interest of the minor children factors as articulated on O.R.C. 3109.04.
III. The trial court erred by abusing its discretion when it named
Appellee the residential parent of the parties’ minor children as the court
erroneously found a change of circumstances/that the advantages of a
change outweighed the harm, did not properly apply the best interest
factors, and did not properly consider the facts in evidence especially the
court investigator’s report and recommendations.
II. Analysis
{¶ 9} Modification of a decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities is
governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which states in relevant part:
The court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights
and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, based on facts
that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at
the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances
of the child, the child’s residential parent, or either of the parents subject to
a shared parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve
the best interest of the child. In applying these standards, the court shall
retain the residential parent designated by the prior decree or the prior
4. shared parenting decree, unless a modification is in the best interest of the
child and one of the following applies:
***
(iii) The harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.
{¶ 10} Additionally, it is well-established that in order to be considered a requisite
change in circumstances so as to trigger best interest analysis, an asserted change must be
demonstrated to be “of substance, not a slight or inconsequential change.” Davis v.
Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). We review the trial court’s
determination concerning an alleged change in circumstances for an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, such decisions may not be reversed absent a finding that the court’s judgment
was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, father argues that the trial court erred when
it found that a change of circumstances had occurred, and that the harm caused by a
change of environment was outweighed by the advantages. Specifically, father asserts
that his drug use was nothing new since it was known to the trial court prior to the
dissolution. Further, father contends that his “criminal behavior and anger issues were
not new as they also existed prior to the dissolution.”
{¶ 12} Having reviewed the testimony from the hearing on mother’s motion, we
find that father’s articulation of the facts is incomplete. Indeed, father agreed at the
hearing that the criminal activity with which he was charged took place after the
5. dissolution. Further, father recalled transporting the children to mother’s house without a
license on at least one occasion since March 2015, several years after the dissolution.
Concerning his promotion of drug usage and his image as a rap artist, father admitted to
posting a video depicting him passing out marijuana joints to a crowd of people at a
Checkers restaurant. When asked about the timing of the video, father indicated that it
was posted sometime in 2015. Father also acknowledged that he allowed two individuals
to reside in his home, one of which was previously convicted of a sex crime and the other
a recovering heroin addict. When pressed about the nature of the sex crime, father was
unable to rule out the possibility that the victim was a juvenile. Further, father indicated
that the crime involved the use of a firearm.
{¶ 13} In light of the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion when it found a change of circumstances had occurred in this case. Further,
given the nature of the aforementioned incidents that took place since the dissolution,
some of which resulted in criminal charges or unlawful activity, we cannot say that the
trial court abused its discretion by finding that the harm likely to be caused by a change
of environment was outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment.
Accordingly, father’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 14} Having found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a
change of circumstances, we now turn to father’s second assignment of error, in which he
contends that the trial court erred when it found that a change in custody was in the
children’s best interests under R.C. 3109.04.
6. {¶ 15} A trial court’s conclusion concerning whether a change in custody is in the
best interests of the children under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Jones v. Jones, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1044, 2012-Ohio-2225, ¶ 13, citing
Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre, 100 Ohio App.3d 203, 210, 653 N.E.2d 712 (3d Dist.1994).
Moreover, it is the trial court that must determine factual disputes and weigh the
testimony and credibility of witnesses, and this court will not entertain those tasks on
appeal. Id.
{¶ 16} Upon our thorough review the record of the trial court proceedings, it is
clear that the court considered all of the factors relevant to this case in determining the
children’s best interests. The court seemed particularly concerned about father’s
admitted drug use and decision to allow a convicted sex offender and a heroin addict to
reside in the home. The court also considered that mother’s normal work hours would
not interfere with parenting time, while father’s second shift work schedule limits the
time he is available for the children to one to two hours per day, excluding the weekends.
Moreover, the court noted father’s admission to driving the children to exchange them
with mother without having a valid driver’s license. These concerns are rooted in
testimony given at the change of custody hearing.
{¶ 17} In light of these concerns and the deference we must give to the trial
court’s resolution of factual disputes and credibility issues, we find that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in finding that a change in custody was in the children’s best
interests. Accordingly, father’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
7. {¶ 18} In father’s third assignment of error, he asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion when it named mother the residential parent of the children. In this assignment
of error, father essentially restates the arguments he raised in the first two assignments of
error, namely that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that a change in custody
was warranted based upon a change in circumstances and the children’s best interests.
Having already found no merit to those arguments, we find father’s third assignment of
error not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 19} The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division is affirmed. Costs are hereby assessed to father in accordance with
App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________ Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
8.