In re J.R.

[Cite as In re J.R., 2026-Ohio-3370.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN RE: J.R. : APPEAL NO. C-250486 TRIAL NO. F/22/568 X : : JUDGMENT ENTRY : This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed 75 percent to the appellant and 25 percent to the appellee. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27. To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 8/28/2026. Pursuant to App.R. 30, the clerk is directed to send all parties, or their counsel if represented, a copy of the court’s judgment and note such action on the docket. By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as In re J.R., 2026-Ohio-3370.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN RE: J.R. : APPEAL NO. C-250486 TRIAL NO. F/22/568 X : : OPINION : Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 28, 2026 Law Office of Arica L. Underwood LLC and Arica L. Underwood, for Appellant Father, Stagnaro Hannigan Koop, Co., LPA, and Michaela M. Stagnaro, for Appellee Mother. [Cite as In re J.R., 2026-Ohio-3370.] ZAYAS, Presiding Judge. {¶1} In this appeal, appellant father raises four assignments of error challenging the juvenile court’s judgment on custody and contempt. In the first two assignments of error, father challenges the juvenile court’s custody determination regarding J.R., arguing that the juvenile court failed to properly apply and weigh the best-interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), and asserts that the juvenile court’s best-interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In the third assignment of error, father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to find mother in contempt for willful violations of court-ordered parenting time. In the fourth assignment of error, father asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to consider or conduct a hearing on father’s request for attorney fees arising from mother’s contempt of court. For the reasons that follow, we overrule the first, second, and third assignments of error, sustain the fourth assignment of error, reverse the juvenile court’s judgment as to father’s request for attorney fees, and remand the matter for the juvenile court to hold a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of attorney fees under R.C. 3109.051(K). I. Background {¶2} In April 2022, father filed a petition for custody or shared parenting of J.R. in the juvenile court around a week after J.R. was born. Around a year later, the parties reached an agreement wherein mother would be J.R.’s sole residential parent and legal custodian and father would have parenting time (hereinafter referred to as “the April 10, 2023 parenting-time order”). {¶3} Shortly after, father filed a second petition for custody and a request for an emergency hearing. Father alleged that mother was violent around J.R. and said that he was worried about J.R.’s safety. In the supporting affidavit, father detailed an  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS alleged incident wherein mother was upset and attacked him physically with J.R. in the room. J.R. was allegedly asleep when the altercation began but woke up crying during the incident and mother continued to attack father until he looked at mother “one last time” and asked her to stop and attend to J.R., which is when the attack stopped. After a hearing that same day, the magistrate denied father’s request for an emergency order. The magistrate found that J.R. was not harmed during the incident and father “stated Mother has never harmed the child before.” The magistrate’s entry states, “Both parents have filed criminal charges against the other based on the incident, and both parents have obtained protection orders against one another.” {¶4} A few days later, father filed a motion to set aside the magistrate’s order based on “lack of evidence” at the hearing that he claimed to “have now.” Further, father stated that mother did not let him see or pick up J.R. on the day of the emergency hearing (May 5, 2023), causing him to worry about J.R.’s safety. Father filed a motion for contempt that same day on the same basis. The motion for contempt indicated that mother was notified “by PD” that the protection order for J.R. “was taken off” and that father would be at the police station to pick him up with a third person. {¶5} While his motion to set aside was pending, father filed another request for an emergency hearing. In the supporting affidavit, father stated that mother “has been violent on more than one occasion and is now using DV to keep me away from my son.” Father said, “I fear for my son and his safety.” After a hearing that same day, the magistrate denied father’s emergency request. The magistrate found no evidence that J.R. was harmed or in danger. {¶6} Shortly after, mother filed a motion to modify father’s parenting time. The motion stated, “Father has engaged in conduct that leads Mother to believe that 4  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS [J.R.] is not safe with Father.” {¶7} The following month, the juvenile court entered an order denying father’s motion to set aside the magistrate’s order based on lack of transcripts and lack of evidence of harm or danger to J.R. {¶8} That same month, the parties appeared before the magistrate for a pre- trial hearing on the pending motions. Relevant here, the magistrate found that J.R. was no longer a protected party on the protection order and ordered that, unless the parties could produce a superseding order from another court, the parties were expected to follow the juvenile court’s parenting-time orders. {¶9} A couple of months later, in October 2023, father filed a second motion for contempt, alleging that he was denied parenting time each week from May 8, 2023, through October 9, 2023. Attached to the motion is a modified protection order entered by the Hamilton County Municipal Court on May 5, 2023, stating, “[Father] may see child [J.R.] through third party at police station.” {¶10} Shortly after, the parties again appeared before the magistrate for a pretrial hearing. Relevant here, the magistrate acknowledged receipt of the protection orders and stated, Mother’s position is that even though the child was removed from her protection order against Father, the Judge’s entry states there should be a third person present if there is to be an exchange at the police station. If no third person is present, then she has no duty to exchange the child with Father. The Judge’s order does not name any third party. The parents cannot have any contact, so there has been no ability for them to agree on a third party. Mother has not provided a third party for the exchange. Mother has not taken the child to the 5  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS police station for an exchange. Father states Mother has a duty to take the child to the police station for the exchange to occur in the lobby of the police station. He believes the existing order from this court requires Mother to take the child to the police station. The criminal matter is set for a hearing on 10-30-23. Father has had no visitation with the child since the DV charges were filed because Mother has not taken the child to the police station along with a third party. Father states that no third party was named during the protection order hearing. {¶11} The following month, in November 2023, the parties again appeared before the magistrate for a pretrial hearing. Relevant here, the magistrate stated, The parties attended the criminal court case along with Attorney Underwood. The judge stated there was no specific third person to be present, just the officer who mans the desk inside the police station. The court orders Mother and Father along with their attorneys to create a plan to reintroduce Father back into the child’s life. They have one week to do so, if that is not able to be accomplished within a week, the parties are ordered to abide by this court's original parenting time order. (hereinafter referred to as “the November 29, 2023 parenting-time order”). {¶12} Thereafter, the parties filed proposed transition plans and mother filed a motion for shared parenting with a proposed shared-parenting plan. {¶13} On February 5, 2024, father filed a third motion for contempt, alleging that he was denied parenting time each week from October 9, 2023, through January 29, 2024. Attached to the motion are the judge’s sheets from the municipal court action. The most recent sheet shows that the municipal court entered an order on 6  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS December 11, 2023, that the parties were to exchange J.R. in the lobby of the “Forest Park PD” and could communicate “through the app called APPCLOSE.” Another sheet shows that the order from the court on May 5, 2023, was for the parenting time to be “arranged through 3rd party intermediary @ police station.” {¶14} That same day, the parties appeared before the magistrate for a “‘Change of Circumstance’ trial.” The magistrate found that “there were substantial changes in both Mother’s and [J.R.]’s circumstances between [the date of the juvenile court’s parenting-time orders] and [the date that J.R. was removed from the protection orders].” The magistrate then set the matter for a “‘Best Interest trial,” and entered interim parenting-time orders specifying, The parents shall exchange the child in the lobby of the Forest Park Police Station. No person other than the Desk Officer in the lobby needs to be present. The parents shall have no other in-person contact pursuant to the parents’ TPOs in Municipal Court. The parents shall continue to use the AppClose app if there is any necessary information regarding the child or the parent’s situation that needs to be conveyed outside of exchanging the child at the police station. Mother shall not be present during Father’s visits except for the exchange of the child at the police station as long as the TPOs are valid. (hereinafter referred to as “the February 5, 2024 parenting-time order”). Mother also withdrew her motion for shared parenting, and the parties agreed to incorporate the evidence and testimony presented at this hearing into the best-interest trial. {¶15} On March 29, 2024, father filed a fourth motion for contempt, alleging that mother was in violation of the court’s interim parenting-time orders for engaging “in a series of actions designed to prevent [father] from visiting his son.” 7  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶16} On April 10, 2024, father filed a fifth motion for contempt, alleging that mother refused to bring J.R. for overnight visits on April 6 and 13, 2024. {¶17} Trial on all pending motions occurred on April 17, May 31, October 23, and December 13, 2024. After submission of written closing arguments, the magistrate entered a decision on December 26, 2024. The magistrate denied father’s request for custody but ordered equal parenting time with J.R. The magistrate also denied his first and second motions for contempt but granted father’s third, fourth, and fifth motions for contempt. {¶18} Notably, the magistrate found under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(i) that mother had continuously and willfully denied father’s right to parenting time. The magistrate stated, “The Court finds Mother’s statements that she believed she might be jailed if she showed up to exchange [J.R.] at the police station as disingenuous at best. Mother had counsel to advise her.” Nevertheless, the magistrate ultimately said, While the Court finds Mother’s actions intentional to deprive Father of parenting time with his child, neither parent currently has a filed Proposed Shared Parenting Plan that they wish the Court to consider. Therefore, the Court cannot order Shared Parenting. [J.R.] is well-adjusted to Mother’s home where he is being well cared for. He is bonded to Mother’s extended family. Mother is and has been monetarily supported by her extended family for any needs for Mother and [J.R.]. Father’s housing is less stable and his income has been less stable. His support system is not as sufficient as Mother’s support system. Before the 4-13-23 incident, Father had agreed to Mother retaining full legal custody. The Court denies Father’s Motion for Custody. Mother retains full legal custody, but the Court orders the 8  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS attached [equal] Parenting Time schedule for Father. Mother and Father SHALL follow that schedule in all of its parts. Any deviations from that schedule SHALL BE IN WRITING that is CONFIRMED by both parents. Each parent is ordered to acknowledge and respond to any AppClose communication from the other parent within 24 hours, no exceptions. Regarding Father’s Contempt Motions, the Court denies Father’s Contempt Motions filed prior to 12-11-23. The Court grants all of Father’s Contempt Motions filed after 12-11-23. The Court orders Mother to pay all of Father’s Attorney’s Fees associated with the costs of those Motions. The Court does not find it in the child’s best interest to curtail [J.R.]’s parenting time with Mother during the regular year, as the parents now have 50/50 time with [J.R.] and that appears appropriate. However, the Court vacates Mother’s ability to have any extended time with [J.R.] for the first full year after this Court order goes into effect. Father is able to exercise his extended time with [J.R.] during the first full year after this order goes into effect. Any willful disregard or contempt of this order by either parent would show the Court the parent is not able to follow Court orders and possibly not suitable to have custody of [J.R.]. {¶19} Both parties filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. Relevant here, father argued that it was in J.R.’s best interest to be placed in his custody. Further, father argued that mother should be held in contempt for the parenting time she denied him from May 2023 to February 2024. In his supplemental objections, father further argued—among other things—that the magistrate failed to properly apply the 9  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS best-interest standard when awarding custody to mother where the magistrate focused on “past parental conflict” rather than the present efforts by father to cooperate and co-parent with mother and argued that he is entitled to attorney fees as a result of mother’s contempt. Mother challenged the magistrate’s contempt findings and the award of attorney fees to father. {¶20} The juvenile court held oral arguments on the objections on July 16, 2025. Thereafter, the court entered a decision on August 1, 2025. The juvenile court found that the magistrate did not properly determine the factual issues nor appropriately apply the law and therefore did not adopt the magistrate’s decision. Nevertheless, the court’s order appears consistent with the magistrate’s decision. {¶21} First, the juvenile court found that sole custody to mother was in J.R.’s best interest. The court found under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f) that mother’s compliance with court orders has been a persistent issue throughout the case and noted its concern about mother’s failure to comply with the court’s prior orders and her attitude towards father. The court stated, The record is abundantly clear that Mother and Father do not share a positive relationship and are greatly unhappy with the other’s actions. However, Mother is the only party that has a history of withholding the child from the other. She has consistently and readily failed to comply with the Court’s Orders and has justified her actions with the explanations, such as the child needs a transition plan even though that was not an Order made by the Court. The Court is concerned that Mother desires to be in sole control of the child and is unwilling to co-parent the child with Father despite his role as a parent. {¶22} Further, under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(i), the court stated, “The record is 10  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS clear that Mother has continuously and willfully denied Father’s right to parenting time in accordance with prior Court Orders. Mother argues that she did so because of concerns about the child’s health and safety but the Court disagrees.” Nevertheless, after weighing all the factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), the court ultimately found that it was in J.R.’s best interest to remain in mother’s custody. {¶23} As for contempt, the court acknowledged all five of father’s motions for contempt. Regarding the first two motions (filed on May 8, 2023, and October 11, 2023), the court declined to find mother in contempt for violating the court’s April 10, 2023 parenting-time order “[g]iven the extensive ambiguity within the order from the Hamilton County Municipal Court.” The court’s resolution of the remaining three contempt motions is less clear. The court expressly purports to grant the third and fifth motions (filed on February 5, 2024, and April 10, 2024) but does not expressly address the fourth motion (filed on March 29, 2024). Nevertheless, we construe the trial court’s decision as granting all three motions as, when looking at the context of the juvenile court’s order and the orders being discussed, it is clear that the juvenile court found mother in contempt of the parenting-time orders entered on November 29, 2023,1 and February 5, 2024, and the court indicated that these orders were the subject of the third, fourth, and fifth motions for contempt. Whereas the court stated that the April 10, 2023 parenting-time order was the subject of the first two motions, and the court expressly declined to find mother in contempt for violating this order. {¶24} Beyond that, the juvenile court declined to award attorney fees to either 1 The juvenile court’s decision purports to discuss an interim order from February 5, 2024, when addressing the third motion for contempt filed on February 5, 2024. This appears to be a typo as the substance of the order that is quoted by the court in this section of the decision is from the November 29, 2023 parenting-time order. Thus, the court appears to grant the February 5, 2024 motion based on mother’s violation of the November 29, 2023 parenting-time order. We construe the decision accordingly. 11  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS party given that “the parties mutually acknowledge and concede that the Magistrate did not hold a separate hearing to address attorney fees.” {¶25} Father now appeals, raising four assignments of error for this court’s review that challenge the juvenile court’s custody and contempt determinations. II. First and Second Assignments of Error {¶26} In the first assignment of error, father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to properly apply and weigh the best-interest factors set forth in R.C. 3190.04(F)(1). In essence, father asserts that the juvenile court’s order does not show that the court meaningfully considered the statutory factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) where the court’s order does not reflect that it adequately considered mother’s past “interference” with the court’s parenting-time orders when assessing the child’s best interest. He asserts that the juvenile court’s judgment entry “does not reflect how those factors were analyzed despite extensive evidence relevant to the statutory criteria.” {¶27} In the second assignment of error, father argues that the juvenile court’s custody determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence. He asserts that interference with parenting-time is a significant best-interest factor and the record demonstrates “evidence favoring [him] under the best-interest factors” where it shows that mother interfered with parenting time and he is stable and willing and able to provide care for the child. {¶28} Because the first and second assignments of error both challenge whether the juvenile court appropriately considered and weighed the best-interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), they will be addressed together. A. Standard of Review {¶29} “An appellate court reviews a juvenile court’s custody determination for 12  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS an abuse of discretion.” In re G.W., 2024-Ohio-1551, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.), citing Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988); accord, e.g., Bohannon v. Lewis, 2022-Ohio-2398, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), citing Saylor v. Saylor, 2020-Ohio-3647, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.). “An abuse of discretion ‘implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable or arbitrary.’” Bohannon at ¶ 14, citing Kane v. Hardin, 2019-Ohio-4362, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.). “An abuse of discretion occurs ‘when a court exercise[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.’” In re L.F., 2023-Ohio- 4199, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.), citing Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-304, ¶ 35. B. Law and Analysis {¶30} “After a juvenile court determines there is a change in circumstances,2 it ‘must determine whether a modification [of custody] is in the best interest of the child[.]’” In re L.F. at ¶ 24, citing Bohannon at 20. “When determining what is in a child’s best interest, ‘“the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to,”’ those specified in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).” Id., citing Bohannon at ¶ 20, citing R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). In other words, the juvenile court’s discretion is not absolute; the court must follow the procedures prescribed in R.C. 3109.04 when making custody decisions. In re G.W. at 18. Thus, “‘it must be apparent from the record that the trial court considered the best interest factors in its decision.’” Giovanini v. Bailey, 2018- Ohio-369, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.), citing Phillips v. Phillips, 2014-Ohio-248, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). However, the juvenile court is not required to explicitly make findings of fact, in the absence of such a request under Civ.R. 52, nor is it required to set forth its analysis as to each factor. Id. {¶31} Further, “no one statutory factor controls the juvenile court’s best- 2 The change of circumstances finding in this case is not challenged on appeal. 13  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS interest determination.” Davidson v. Hodge, 2023-Ohio-1638, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.), citing In re L.L., 2020-Ohio-5609, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). Rather, “‘the weight to be given to any factor lies within the trial court’s discretion.’” Id., citing In re L.L. at ¶ 8. {¶32} Here, the juvenile court expressly set out the required factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), applied those factors, and found that it was in J.R.’s best interest to maintain custody with mother. See In re G.W., 2024-Ohio-1551, at ¶ 18 (1st Dist.). Further, the juvenile court discussed the relevant factors and explained its ultimate weighing of the factors. See id. {¶33} First, the court considered the wishes of the parents. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a). The court found that mother wished to remain the legal custodian of J.R. with an award of parenting time to father consistent with the initial custody agreement or a “2-2-3” equal parenting-time schedule. The court further found that father wished to be named the sole legal custodian of J.R. with a 50/50 parenting-time schedule. {¶34} Second, the court explained that J.R. was too young for an in-camera interview. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(b). {¶35} Third, the court considered the interaction and interrelationship with J.R.’s parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect J.R.’s best interest. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c). The court found that J.R. had a positive relationship with mother, father, and maternal grandparents, who provide care to J.R. when mother is unable to do so. The court noted father’s testimony that he takes J.R. on outings to the park and to the aquarium for enrichment purposes. The court further noted father’s testimony that he brings J.R. to play with a friend’s similarly-aged child. {¶36} Fourth, the court considered J.R.’s adjustment to his home, school, and community. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d). The court found that J.R. has progressed very 14  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS well in Mother’s home, noting J.R.’s current developmental abilities and mother’s reports that J.R. is well-adjusted to her home and church community and has friends in her neighborhood. The court also found that J.R. was well-adjusted to father and his home. The court further indicated, While Father’s family does not reside in Cincinnati, Ohio and, at the time of the Magistrate’s Decision, had not yet met the child, Father indicated that he receives support from his coworkers and neighbors in the student housing where he resides. Given the lack of family in the area, Father’s child-care plans while he is at work were also discussed. Father’s employer requires him to follow a 24/7 on-call schedule every third week of the month. In response to questions about what he would do with the child while on-call, he testified that either the building police officer or a resident advisor would be able to watch and provide care for the child. These potential babysitters are unknown to the child and to Mother. Despite Father’s positive description of the child’s adjustment, Mother continuously raised concerns about the child’s temperament upon returning to her after a visit with Father. Mother testified that she has observed behavioral changes in the child when he returns from Father’s care, such as the child hiding under tables and being fearful of loud noises. Maternal Grandparents also indicated that the child has appeared hesitant and scared upon his return from Father. Mother also identified incidents when the child has returned to her wearing the same diaper that he was wearing when she dropped him off with Father four hours earlier. Mother testified that the child has been returned with a 15  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS diaper rash, diarrhea, and has been hungry and thirsty upon his return. In an attempt to remedy these concerns, Mother indicated that she attempted to provide Father with diapers and food for the child but that Father refused to accept Mother’s offerings. Mother also indicated that she has observed the child use inappropriate language after he is returned to her care, language that she believes Father has taught him. The record shows that Father did not report any similar concerns for the child’s behavior in his home. The Court does not dismiss Mother’s concerns but finds it appropriate to note that some, not all, of these behavioral concerns could be a product of the child’s age and toddlerhood. {¶37} Fifth, the court considered the mental and emotional health of the parents. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(e). The court noted some prior concerns for both mother and father but ultimately found that “[n]either party stated that they are experiencing any present mental health concerns.” {¶38} Sixth, the court considered which parent was more likely to honor and facilitate court-ordered parenting time. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f). The court found, Mother’s compliance with Court Orders has been a persistent issue throughout this case. As will be discussed later in this Entry, Father has filed four Motions for Contempt against Mother alleging that she repeatedly withheld the child from him. The record shows that Mother conceded that she has withheld the child previously but argued that she did so because it was in the best interest of the child as she had concerns about the child’s health and safety in Father’s care. The Court has concerns about Mother’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior 16  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Orders and about Mother’s attitude towards Father. The record is abundantly clear that Mother and Father do not share a positive relationship and are greatly unhappy with the other’s actions. However, Mother is the only party that has a history of withholding the child from the other. She has consistently and readily failed to comply with the Court’s Orders and has justified her actions with the explanations, such as the child needs a transition plan even though that was not an Order made by the Court. The Court is concerned that Mother desires to be in sole control of the child and is unwilling to co-parent the child with Father despite his role as a parent. {¶39} Seventh, the court found that there was no current or past child-support order in effect. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(g). {¶40} Eighth, the court considered the prior criminal proceedings for domestic violence involving the parents and J.R. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(h). The court explained the competing testimony of mother and father as to what occurred during the event that led to mother and father separately filing criminal charges of domestic violence against one another. The court also noted that J.R. was added to mother’s protection order against father but removed on May 5, 2023. The court found that the charges were later dismissed and no current stay-away or protection order was in effect. The court further found that neither party indicated that J.R. was harmed during the altercation. {¶41} Ninth, the court considered whether mother has continuously and willfully denied father’s right to parenting time in accordance with the court’s orders. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(i). The court found, “The record is clear that Mother has continuously and willfully denied Father’s right to parenting time in accordance with 17  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS prior Court Orders. Mother argues that she did so because of concerns about the child’s health and safety but the Court disagrees.” {¶42} Last, the court considered whether either parent has, or is planning to, establish a residence outside of Ohio. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(j). The court found that neither parent indicated that they had any intention of establishing a residence outside of Ohio. {¶43} Beyond that, the court considered the parents’ history of letting their anger influence their decisions with respect to J.R. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) (requiring the court to consider “all relevant factors”). {¶44} Ultimately, based on consideration of the above factors, the court determined that it was in J.R.’s best interest to be in the sole custody of mother. The court stated, Ultimately, the Court is largely led to believe that neither parent currently has the ability to cooperate or make any decisions together, even if those decisions may be in the best interest of the child. Both parents are content to blame the other for the problems while also making decisions that antagonize the other. The Court reviews and discusses these incidents in order to highlight the fact that both parents have acted in ways that have caused great distress toward the other. It is the Court’s hope that the parents will be able to set aside their hurt and frustration with the other so that they can work together to parent their child. That being said, upon extensive consideration, the Court believes that it is in the child’s best interest to be in the sole Legal Custody of Mother. The record shows that the child is well-adjusted to Mother’s home, has a good relationship with Maternal Grandparents, 18  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS and Mother has consistently met all of his needs. In contrast, the Court has concerns with Father’s plans to leave the child with his coworkers or neighbors when he has to work. These potential babysitters are unknown to the child and Mother and the Court have [sic] concerns about the sustainability of the plan and the potential harms that the child could potentially be exposed to while in their care. {¶45} Father first argues that the court did not meaningfully consider the statutory best-interest factors. However, as shown above, there is no indication in the record that the trial court did not meaningfully consider the statutory factors. Rather, what father appears to be arguing is that the juvenile court did not give enough weight to its finding that mother continuously and willfully denied his right to parenting time. However, as stated above, the weight to be given to any factor is within the discretion of the trial court and father has not specifically challenged any of the juvenile court’s findings that weigh in favor of custody to mother being in J.R.’s best interest. Beyond that, as shown below, the juvenile court’s best-interest finding is ultimately supported by the record. {¶46} Father argues that the juvenile court’s custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶47} As an initial matter, as argued by mother, father fails to point to the record at all in support of this assertion. “‘If an argument exits that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out.’” In re J.G.S., 2019-Ohio- 802, ¶ 31 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-2722, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.); accord, e.g., Guthrie v. Guthrie, 2024-Ohio-5581, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.). Therefore, this court could overrule this argument on this basis alone. {¶48} Nevertheless, father suggests that the weight of the evidence lies with 19  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS him where the record shows that he can provide care for J.R. and mother has repeatedly interfered with his parenting time. {¶49} Father testified that he works as a facilities manager for off-campus student housing. He lives in a provided four-bedroom apartment at that location. He said his relationship with J.R. has been great since he has been able to spend time with him. He said, “Our relationship is (pause) it’s been really good, it’s been awesome. It’s been no problems. He adapted pretty good from not seeing me for so long.” He testified that he wants custody of J.R. because he is going to follow the court order and encourage the parenting time in the order as well as encouraging extra time with mother. When asked about how J.R. was adjusting to spending time with him, he said J.R. adjusted pretty fast and will reach for him and come to him when he picks him up. He said J.R. sleeps “perfectly fine” with him and said playtime is “perfectly fine.” He said J.R. is not nervous and does not cry. He stated, “So he adjusted pretty good.” He said that he takes J.R. to his home, the park, and to activities during his visits, like the Winton Wood Park activities and taking walks. He also takes J.R. to play dates with his friend’s two-year-old daughter. He said that J.R. likes dancing and music, so they “play around a lot.” {¶50} He testified that his work schedule is Monday through Friday, “8:30 to 5.” When asked what strengths he felt he would bring as the custodial parent, he answered, “I will be following the court order. I would be able to provide a safe environment for [J.R.], a good healthcare, a good daycare for [J.R.]. Cincinnati Daycare, I believe that’s the one that I'm looking at right now, so . . . .” When asked why he wanted full custody of J.R., he said, “Because [mother] will not follow the court order, and she will continue to e [sic] the system, the court system or any way possible to keep me away from [J.R.] as best as she can.” 20  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶51} When father was asked if he is on call for his position as a facilities manager, he said that he is on call every third weekend. When asked what his plan was if J.R. was with him and he got a call, he said, There’s officers there that he’s more than willing to stay with [J.R.]. He’s offered, so he can watch [J.R.]. So like if there’s an emergency, I also have the officer t