Harmon v. Harmon

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth Appellate District, Butler County · 2017 · Family Law

Family Lawchild custodyshared parentingchild supporttax dependency exemptionsshared parentingterminationresidential parent

Facts

After divorce, the parties operated under a shared parenting plan under which each was deemed a residential parent, but Mother later moved to terminate shared parenting, citing Father's lack of involvement and interference with educational and medical matters. Following hearings with testimony from both parents and the guardian ad litem, the magistrate terminated shared parenting, named Father residential parent and legal custodian, kept a schedule under which the children still spent most of their time with Mother, ordered Mother to pay support, and awarded Father both tax exemptions. Mother objected, arguing Father should not have custody authority and that the court wrongly treated the parties as having equal parenting time. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, and Mother appealed.

Issue

After terminating a shared parenting plan at one parent's request, did the trial court abuse its discretion by naming Father the residential parent and legal custodian? Did it also abuse its discretion by calculating child support and awarding tax dependency exemptions based on a finding that the parties had equal parenting time and without properly applying the governing statutory factors?

Rule

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), a court may terminate a prior shared parenting decree upon the request of one or both parents; once terminated, the court must allocate parental rights and responsibilities as if no shared parenting plan had existed and must designate a residential parent and legal custodian consistent with the children's best interests under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). A court may deviate from guideline child support under R.C. 3119.22 after considering the factors in R.C. 3119.23, but a deviation must rest on supported factual findings. Under R.C. 3119.82, when issuing or reconsidering child support, the court must designate which parent may claim the children as dependents and, if the parties do not agree, must consider statutory best-interest factors including net tax savings, relative financial circumstances, amount of parenting time, and tax-credit eligibility.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, Nina Torres and Eric Dalton divorced under a shared parenting decree for their son. Two years later, Nina moved to terminate shared parenting because communication had broken down, but the domestic relations court terminated the decree without expressly finding that shared parenting was no longer in the child's best interest.

On appeal, which argument by Eric is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a court may terminate a prior shared parenting decree upon the request of one or both parents under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c). A separate finding that shared parenting is not in the child's best interest is one permissible basis for termination, but not a required one when a parent has requested termination.