Wallace v. Wallace

[Cite as Wallace v. Wallace, 

.]




                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           WARREN COUNTY




 MARIA R. WALLACE,                               :
                                                       CASE NO. CA2023-03-030
        Appellant,                               :
                                                              OPINION
                                                 :            12/28/2023
     - vs -
                                                 :

 RACHEL L. WALLACE,                              :

        Appellee.                                :




              APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                         DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
                              Case No. 18DR40305


Engel & Martin, LLC, and Mary K. Martin, for appellant.

Smith, Meier & Webb, and Mark D. Webb, for appellee.



        M. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Maria Wallace, appeals from a decision of the Warren County

Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying her request to relocate and

change her child's school district, and awarding appellee, Rachel Wallace, additional

parenting time. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the domestic relations court's
                                                                                Warren CA2023-03-030

decision.

                                   Facts and Procedural History

        {¶ 2} Maria and Rachel were married in April 2015, in Frederick, Maryland. In 2018,

Maria and Rachel filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage with a separation

agreement and shared parenting plan. The shared parenting plan set forth guidelines for

the care of John, the couple's son, who was born in July 2015.1 On June 22, 2018, the

domestic relations court issued a decree of dissolution, which incorporated the parties'

separation agreement and shared parenting plan into the court's order, as well as a decree

of shared parenting.

        {¶ 3} The shared parenting plan provided that both Maria and Rachel were the

residential parents of John. Maria and Rachel were given equal parenting time throughout

the week, aside from Saturdays, which alternated between the parties. At the time the

shared parenting plan was prepared, Maria resided in Maineville, Ohio, while Rachel

resided in Mason, Ohio. Although the shared parenting plan indicated that John could

attend school in either parent's school system, Maria's residence was used for school

registration purposes.

        {¶ 4} Pursuant to the parties' agreement, neither party was permitted to relocate

without first notifying the court. Specifically, the shared parenting plan stated that

                [i]f either parent desires to relocate, the relocating parent * * *
                must notify the court and their intent to relocate and provide the
                Court with a new residence address promptly. Said notice shall
                be filed with the clerk of Court and a copy forwarded to the other
                parent except as provided in Ohio Revised code section
                3109.051(G)(2)(3) and (4). Upon receipt of the Notice, the Court
                on its own motion or the motion of the non-relocating parent may
                schedule a hearing with notice to both parents to determine
                whether it is in the best interest of the minor chil[d] to revise the



1. "John" is a pseudonym adopted in this opinion for purposes of privacy and readability. See In re A.P., 12th
Dist. Warren No. CA2022-01-002, 

.
                                                     -2-
                                                                       Warren CA2023-03-030

                Standard Parenting Order for the minor child.

The parenting plan further limited the parties' ability to move John from Warren County, and

provides that

                [n]either party may remove the child from Warren County or its
                contiguous Ohio counties and establish residence for them
                without first obtaining a court order or an agreed entry permitting
                such removal.

      {¶ 5} At some point, Rachel remarried and moved to Indiana, where she exercised

her parenting time with John for some time. Thereafter, in May 2020, Maria moved the

domestic relations court to modify the shared parenting plan. In her motion, Maria argued

the parenting schedule should be modified to allow John to begin kindergarten at Kings

local school district. Because Rachel was living in Indiana at the time, Maria claimed the

current parenting schedule was not feasible, and that John should primarily reside with her.

After a hearing, the court granted Maria's motion, and found it was in John's best interest

to begin kindergarten at Kings School District in 2020. Maria was named the residential

parent for school purposes as long as she resided in the Kings School District. The court

also modified the shared parenting plan, and determined that John should reside primarily

with Maria, and as long as Rachel lived in Indiana, Rachel would have parenting time on

Wednesdays and every other weekend. If Rachel obtained a residence within 20 minutes

of Maria's residence, the parties were to alternate parenting time, with Rachel having

parenting time every Monday until Wednesday, and every other weekend.

      {¶ 6} After this modification, Rachel began residing in Warren County on a part-

time basis and exercised her parenting time at her sister's home. In September 2020, Maria

moved the domestic relations court to clarify the term "residence" as used in the

magistrate's August 2020 decision. Maria argued that, despite the close proximity of

Rachel's sister's home to Maria's, Rachel's part-time residence in Warren County did not


                                                -3-
                                                                              Warren CA2023-03-030

qualify Rachel as an Ohio resident, and therefore, she was not entitled to equal parenting

time as detailed in the August 2020 decision. After a hearing, the magistrate determined

that Rachel could continue to reside and exercise her parenting time with John at her sister's

home so long as it was in his best interest.

        {¶ 7} In March 2021, Maria moved the domestic relations court to modify the shared

parenting plan for a second time. In her motion, Maria claimed that, based upon recent

events in Rachel's life, including her ongoing mental health and alcohol issues, as well as

a recent arrest for "an OVI and Child Endangering," any parenting time with Rachel should

be supervised and that Maria should have sole custody of John. The domestic relations

court set the matter for a telephone conference and appointed a guardian ad litem ("GAL")

to protect and act in the best interest of John.

        {¶ 8} The GAL conducted an independent investigation into the matter and issued

a report in July 2021. In her report, the GAL noted that Rachel's parenting time was to be

supervised by Rachel's then-wife, Jessica, but recommended that her parenting time

schedule continue unchanged.             Thereafter, the parties requested the GAL to file a

supplemental report addressing events in Rachel's life that occurred in August 2021,

including a dispute with Jessica, which resulted in police involvement and Jessica filing for

a divorce from Rachel. The GAL filed the supplemental report in November 2021, and the

matter proceeded to a hearing on March 3, 2022.2

        {¶ 9} At the hearing, the parties read an agreement onto the record.                         That

agreement was memorialized into an agreed entry filed by the domestic relations court on

April 13, 2022. Regarding parenting time, the agreed entry noted that Rachel was to have



2. The day before the hearing, the GAL emailed counsel to inform the parties that she would not be filing a
new report, but recommended the parties "maintain the status quo," in that Rachel would continue to use a
"scram device," as well as "BACtrac," and that her parenting time should remain supervised and in the same
duration.
                                                   -4-
                                                                     Warren CA2023-03-030

parenting time every Wednesday after school until 7:30 p.m., and every other weekend on

Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. until 7:30 pm. The agreed entry further stated that

Rachel's parenting time was to be supervised by her sister, brother-in-law, or one of her

parents. Rachel was not provided any overnight parenting time and was prohibited from

driving John. The agreed entry further required Rachel to continue using a BACtrac device,

including the picture function.

       {¶ 10} The agreed entry noted that it resolved any and all other pending motions with

prejudice, and that all other provisions of the existing shared parenting plan, as modified in

August and October of 2020, remained in full force and effect. Notably, the agreed entry

did not change or otherwise discuss the provisions limiting the parties' abilities to relocate

or remove John from Warren County. Thus, pursuant to the agreed entry, those provisions

remained in full effect moving forward.

       {¶ 11} On May 17, 2022, Rachel filed a notice of intent to relocate with the domestic

relations court, which provided the court and Maria with notice that Rachel intended to move

to Maineville, Ohio at the end of May. Two days later, on May 19, 2022, Maria filed a notice

of intent to relocate with the domestic relations court, which provided the court and Rachel

with notice that Maria intended to move to Ashville, Ohio at the end of July.

       {¶ 12} Shortly thereafter, on June 2, 2022, Rachel moved the court to modify the

shared parenting plan and to prohibit the relocation of John. In addition to modifying the

parenting time schedule and provisions, Rachel also requested the court to name her the

residential parent of John for school purposes, or to prohibit Maria's proposed relocation.

The court reappointed the GAL to act in the best interest of John and the matter proceeded

to a two-day hearing on Rachel's motion.

                            Evidence Presented at the Hearing

       {¶ 13} Rachel, Maria, and the GAL testified at the hearing. The GAL also submitted

                                             -5-
                                                                           Warren CA2023-03-030

a report to the court, in which she recommended that John should remain in Kings School

District, and that Rachel's parenting time should slowly increase to Basic II, with

unsupervised parenting time and overnights. The GAL's report, as well as her prior reports,

were entered into evidence as exhibits. Also entered into evidence were, among other

things, approximately 300 pages of communications between Rachel and Maria, various

photographs and emails, John's school registration information, and medical information

pertaining to Rachel.

       {¶ 14} The testimony at the hearing revealed that in late December 2021, Maria

became engaged to Derek, who she began dating in January of 2019. 3 Throughout the

entirety of their relationship, Derek lived in Ashville, Ohio, a suburb near Columbus

approximately one hour and thirty minutes from Maria's home in Maineville. Derek has two

children of his own, aged 12 and 14 at the time of the hearing, who get along with John and

have been involved in his life since mid-2019. Maria described John's relationship with

Derek and his children as healthy, strong, and playful, and noted that John desires Derek's

attention and speaks to him every day. Maria also explained that John wants to be around

Derek and his children, and "wants the family dynamic that [they]'ve established together."

       {¶ 15} On December 30, 2021, around the time Maria became engaged, Rachel

questioned Maria via text message regarding Maria's long-term plans. In so doing, Rachel

sent Maria the following text message:

               I'd like to ask what I did to you to have this much distain [sic]
               towards me to try to take him away from me. * * * Is it ultimately
               you want to move to Columbus with Derek? * * * So, how about
               you communicate what you want from here. I don't have any
               reason to stay in Cinci [sic] other than [John]."

Based upon this text message, Maria believed that Rachel was "seemingly" "willing to the



3. Derek and Maria were married on June 11, 2022, a few months prior to the initial hearing on Rachel's
motion.
                                                  -6-
                                                                      Warren CA2023-03-030

idea" of Maria moving to Columbus with John. Given her belief, Maria and Derek began

"seriously" looking for a house in February 2022, a few weeks prior to the hearing on the

parties' agreed entry.

       {¶ 16} In May 2022, Maria and Derek purchased a home in Ashville, Ohio. The home

is located in the Teays Valley School District ("Teays School District"), a district which Maria

considers comparable to Kings School District. The home itself has enough bedrooms for

each child to have their own room, and is in a quiet neighborhood across the street from

the local high school with a big yard and play area for John.

       {¶ 17} In April 2022, after submitting an offer on the home, Maria informed John that

she and Derek had bought a home and would like to move. The following month, Maria

filed her notice of intent to relocate with the court, which informed Rachel that Maria

intended to move out of the Kings School District.         Prior to that time, Maria had not

mentioned moving John to Ashville to Rachel, nor had she mentioned it to the court. When

asked about the delay in notifying the court of her intention to move, Maria explained that

she waited until she had a definitive plan to present to the court and the GAL, and that she

filed her notice within 48 hours of closing on her new home. Maria was adamant that she

would not move if John could not change school districts.

       {¶ 18} Regarding the relocation of John, Maria testified that it is in John's best

interest to relocate with her to Ashville, as she feels she and Derek can provide a stable

environment for John, "a family dynamic" that she and Derek have created. Maria stated

that she and Derek had considered moving to Warren County, but it was not possible with

Derek's work and his existing parenting schedule.          Maria explained that it was not

necessarily "easier" to disrupt Rachel's relationship with John than Derek's relationship with

his children, but that "Rachel doesn't have any children to disrupt" and "it would be easier

to facilitate that relationship" than to relocate Derek's older children. Maria clarified that

                                              -7-
                                                                       Warren CA2023-03-030

Rachel does not have any children other than John. Additionally, if John was permitted to

relocate, Maria had the ability to facilitate all transportation for Rachel's parenting time.

       {¶ 19} Maria testified that John was excited to move to his new house and wanted

to move to Ashville. Maria discussed John's anxiety with his therapist, and as a result of

that conversation, did not have any concerns with moving John to Ashville. Maria believed

John would have no trouble assimilating into the Teays School District, as one of his friends

from Ashville attended school there and Derek's children could attend school in the district

at some point in the future. Additionally, John had changed schools previously without issue

and would have to change schools every few years if he stayed in Kings School District.

Maria acknowledged that she was a proponent of Kings School District in 2020, but claimed

Teays was a comparable district.

       {¶ 20} Regarding increasing Rachel's parenting time, Maria noted several concerns,

including that Rachel was not exercising the entirety of her parenting time at the time of the

hearing and that she was "in the middle of a criminal case for a sobriety issue that has been

ongoing." Maria was also concerned about Rachel's living situation, as Rachel was residing

in a coworker's basement while John had a room upstairs. Maria was also concerned that

Rachel had stopped providing health updates to Maria, including updates regarding her

mental health, sobriety, and physical health.

       {¶ 21} Maria further testified that since their last hearing, Rachel had not attended

all of John's extracurriculars or therapy appointments despite being aware they were

occurring. Regarding John's therapy sessions, Maria acknowledged that only one parent

could attend those sessions, and that she typically schedules and attends those

appointments during her parenting time. Maria testified that she was not keeping John from

Rachel and had tried to work with Rachel on their coparenting issues.

       {¶ 22} Maria was also concerned with Rachel's ability to parent during her parenting

                                               -8-
                                                                    Warren CA2023-03-030

time if left unsupervised, and believed the parenting time should remain supervised while

Rachel remained on probation. Ultimately, Maria wanted to see "consistency" with Rachel,

including a period of no criminal involvement outside of her probationary period and

evidence that Rachel was "moving towards a healthy lifestyle that's consistent and living on

her own" before increasing her parenting time.

      {¶ 23} Rachel, on the other hand, testified that she feels Maria is attempting to

remove Rachel from John's life. Rachel provided several examples of this behavior at the

hearing, including evidence that John had written his name with Derek's last name, which

Maria did not correct, and that John had started calling Rachel, "Rachel," not "Mommy,"

because that is what "Mama," i.e., Maria, calls her. John's school forms were also modified

to change Rachel's status from "Mother" to "Unidentified," while Maria remained identified

as "Mother" and Derek was listed as "Stepfather." In addition, the GAL testified that Maria

had shared unnecessary and inappropriate information with John's school and baseball

coach regarding the court case and parenting schedule, which "paints a picture that

[Rachel] should not be involved."

      {¶ 24} Rachel testified that she intends to purchase a condo in the Kings School

District, but was waiting for the court's decision on John's ability to relocate before

purchasing anything. Rachel works at Costco and makes approximately $27,000 a year.

She had leased an apartment on her own in the past and was a candidate for a promotion

at the time of the hearing. Rachel testified that John needs stability, and that the last few

years had been rough for him because she had not been in his life as much. Rachel

indicated she was amenable to phasing into an increased parenting schedule, but believed

John needed to have both parents involved and was ready for "mommy and [John]" time.

Rachel described her relationship with John as very connected and close, but feels like she

has not had the opportunity to be a parent to him due to the constant supervision of her

                                             -9-
                                                                     Warren CA2023-03-030

parenting time.

       {¶ 25} At the hearing, it was revealed that Rachel was charged with an alcohol

related offense in January 2022. Rachel's counsel stipulated that the matter remained

pending and was set for trial on October 7, 2022. As evidence of her sobriety, Rachel

testified she had utilized and paid for her BACtrac device since December 2021 without

issue, although she acknowledged she had not demonstrated sobriety while unsupervised

by the court.

       {¶ 26} Rachel testified that she is concerned with her ability to communicate with

Maria, as well as Maria's facilitation of Rachel's relationship with John. Rachel believes that

if John moves further away, the communication with Maria will only get worse, and Rachel's

relationship with John will worsen and deteriorate. The GAL testified similarly, and noted

that in her experience, if there are issues with facilitating a relationship with one of the

parents, distance makes those issues worse, which was a concern of hers in this case.

       {¶ 27} As discussed in her report, the GAL testified that she did not recommend John

relocating to Ashville and changing school districts. The GAL had been involved in the case

for approximately one and one-half years prior to the hearing and had spoken to John

regarding the move. During his conversation with the GAL, John disclosed that he was

anxious about the move to Ashville and was nervous about making new friends at a new

school. John informed the GAL that, although he was excited about his new room in his

new home, he wished he could "pick up his house" and "put it back in Ohio."               She

understood John to mean that he wanted his new home to be in the Kings School District.

The GAL testified that John's concerns were typical of any child entering a new school,

which was why she was "not a fan of kids moving schools. * * * [I]t's really hard for them to

start over."

       {¶ 28} There was conflicting testimony presented regarding John's involvement with

                                             - 10 -
                                                                   Warren CA2023-03-030

the King's community. Maria initially claimed that John did not participate in any sort of

Kings extracurricular programs and did not have a lot of playdates or overnights with his

friends. Rachel, on the other hand, testified that John has a lot of friends that he spends

time with, and is involved in football, karate, and baseball. Maria clarified that, although

John was involved in karate at the time of the hearing, it was through a private academy,

not the school district. Maria also acknowledged that John formerly played football and

baseball with the Kings' program and was excited to start the baseball season soon after

the hearing. The testimony also established that John was formerly engaged in counseling

through his school, and since March 2022, had consistently attended counseling with a play

therapist, "Ms. Cobin," who was located in the Cincinnati Area. Maria had historically been

a proponent of Ms. Cobin and the GAL recommended that John continue his counseling

with her in-person.

      {¶ 29} The GAL also recommended slowly transitioning Rachel back to Basic II

parenting time. The GAL testified that she was not sure what the parenting schedule should

look like, but she did not see any reason why John could not have a supervised overnight

visit with Rachel. The GAL indicated that Rachel had followed through with many of the

GAL's recommendations, including following up with her medication management and her

medical providers, as well as participating in BACtrac and family counseling. Although

Rachel had shown nearly eight months of consistency at the time of the hearing, the GAL

wanted to ensure things "continued that way" and recommended a slow transition with

checks in place. The GAL also recommended Rachel continue using BACtrac and to follow

through with all her treatment providers.

                       The Domestic Relations Court's Decision

      {¶ 30} Following the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision granting Rachel's

motion. In so doing, the magistrate found that, based upon the evidence before the court,

                                            - 11 -
                                                                              Warren CA2023-03-030

and the factors within R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), it was in John's best interest to remain in the

King's local school district.4 Specifically, the magistrate found that John is established in

the community at Kings, and that he was doing well academically and socially. The

magistrate noted that, it was not in John's best interest to remove him from the only school

he has known, even if it has only been a few years, and place him in an unfamiliar school

where it is unknown how John will do and if the school will provide John with the services

he receives from his current school. The magistrate further found that part of Maria's

testimony was less than credible, and that it was concerning that Maria did not disclose the

possibility of relocating at the time of the agreed entry in April, despite searching for a home

in a different school district prior to that time.

        {¶ 31} Regarding Rachel's request for additional parenting time, the magistrate

expanded Rachel's parenting time in accordance with the GAL's recommendation. In its

decision, the magistrate provided a detailed timeline of how Rachel's parenting time should

progress to unsupervised overnights by March 2023.

        {¶ 32} On November 29, 2022, Maria filed objections to the magistrate's decision. In

her objections, Maria argued the magistrate erred in awarding Rachel additional parenting

time while prohibiting Maria from moving to Ashville with John. After an independent review,

the domestic relations court overruled Maria's objections and adopted the magistrate's

decision in its entirety.

                                              The Appeal

        {¶ 33} Maria now appeals, raising two assignments of error for our review.

        {¶ 34} Assignment of Error No. 1:




4. The magistrate noted that, although Maria had not filed a motion to modify John's school district, it
addressed the matter in light of the GAL's recommendation regarding the issue and the parties' presentation
of evidence on the issue.
                                                   - 12 -
                                                                        Warren CA2023-03-030

       {¶ 35} THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO DENY APPELLANT'S ABILITY TO

RELOCATE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT

OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶ 36} In her first assignment of error, Maria argues the domestic relations court

abused its discretion when it denied Maria's ability to relocate to Ashville with John.

Specifically, Maria argues the court's decision was not in John's best interest, and is

therefore, against the manifest weight of the evidence, and must be reversed.

       {¶ 37} It is well established that in reviewing a domestic relations issue, an appellate

court employs an abuse of discretion standard of review. Thompson v. Cannon, 12th Dist.

Fayette No. CA2015-02-003, 

, ¶ 21; Renner v. Renner, 12th Dist. Clermont

No. CA2014-01-004, 

. An abuse of discretion is more than an error

in judgment or law; it connotes that the trial court's decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 

 (1983). "This highly

deferential standard of review rests on the premise that the trial judge is in the best position

to determine the credibility of witnesses because he or she is able to observe their

demeanor, gestures, and attitude." Rarden v. Rarden, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-06-

054, 

. Mack v. Mack, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-09-179, 2019-

Ohio-2379, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 38} A manifest weight 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, 

, 

, ¶ 12 quoting State v. Thompkins,

 (1997). In a manifest weight challenge, an appellate 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

                                               - 13 -
                                                                         Warren CA2023-03-030

and a new trial ordered." Id. at ¶ 20. The presumption in weighing the evidence is in favor

of the finder of fact. In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003, 

,

¶ 10. "If the evidence is susceptible to more than one construction, the reviewing court is

bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most

favorable to sustaining the verdict and judgment." 

.

       {¶ 39} "Upon the filing of [a] notice of intent to relocate as provided in R.C.

3109.051(G)(1), the trial court must first determine whether any court orders, such as an

agreed divorce decree, separation agreement, or shared parenting plan, limit the ability of

the parent filing the notice to relocate." Zimmer v. Zimmer, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-

383, 

, *3 (Feb. 27, 2001); see also In re R.L.S., 12th Dist. Warren

No. CA2013-12-117, 

. If there are no court orders limiting the ability

of the parent to relocate, the court may proceed with a hearing to revise the visitation

schedule as provided in R.C. 3109.051(G)(1). In re R.L.S. at ¶ 12. However, "[i]f a court

order expressly or implicitly restricts [a] residential parent's ability to relocate, R.C.

3109.051(G)(1) does not govern the court's authority regarding relocation." Id. at ¶ 13.

Rather, under these circumstances, the court may prevent the parent from relocating and

changing the child's school district where relocation is not in the children's best interests.

Id., citing 

.

       {¶ 40} The burden rests with the party seeking to relocate to establish that relocation

and a change of school districts is in the best interest of the child. Id. at ¶ 14, citing Salisbury

v. Salisbury, 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2005-P-0010 and 2005-P-0084, 

. The domestic relations court is permitted to look at the best interest factors set forth

in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) when the terms of the court order do not provide a standard for the

trial court to employ in making its determination. 

; In re R.L.S., 2014-Ohio-

3294 at ¶ 14. These factors include, but are not limited to, the wishes of the child's parents

                                               - 14 -
                                                                      Warren CA2023-03-030

regarding the child's care; the child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's

parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest;

the child's adjustment to the child's home, school, and community, the mental and physical

health of all persons involved in the situation, and the parent more likely to honor and

facilitate court-approved parenting time rights. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a), (c)-(f).

       {¶ 41} In the present case, the parties' shared parenting agreement, as modified by

the court's entry in August 2020, provided that Maria was John's residential parent so long

as she lived in Kings School District. If Maria wished to relocate or remove John from

Warren County, she was required to provide notice to the court, which could in turn hold a

hearing to determine if relocating was in John's best interest.

       {¶ 42} Because Maria sought to relocate from Maineville to Ashville, and to change

John's school district from Kings School District to Teays School District, she had the

burden of demonstrating the move and change were in John's best interest. Having

thoroughly reviewed the record, we find no error in the domestic relations court's denial of

Maria's request to relocate John and enroll him in a new school district. The domestic

relations court considered the best interest of John in making this determination, and the

court's decision is supported by competent and credible evidence.

       {¶ 43} Maria initially argues that Rachel has been inconsistent in the usage of her

parenting time and in her relationship with John, and therefore, John should be permitted

to move to Ashville, where Maria can provide a stable home life for John with Derek and his

children. However, in only considering the home Maria could provide for John in Ashville,

Maria ignores the evidence presented at the hearing that John would also benefit from a

more consistent and stable relationship with Rachel, who is his mother, as well as her family

located near Cincinnati.

       {¶ 44} The testimony at trial established that if John were to move to Ashville, it would

                                             - 15 -
                                                                     Warren CA2023-03-030

strain his relationship with Rachel, as well as Rachel's co-parenting relationship with Maria.

While Maria essentially claims Rachel could also move to Ashville or the Columbus area to

facilitate her relationship with John, the record indicates Rachel could not feasibly do so.

Additionally, if John were to relocate to Ashville permanently, the record indicates John

would spend significant time driving to and from Rachel's to execute her parenting time and

attend school. Although Maria testified she could transport John to facilitate Rachel's

parenting time, such constant traveling is undoubtedly not in John's best interest. This is

especially true given John's young age and need for stability.

       {¶ 45} Maria also argues the magistrate did not consider John's wishes or the

relationships he had created in Ashville. However, the record reflects the magistrate relied

upon the GAL's testimony that John seemed apprehensive and anxious about changing

school districts. Although there was evidence that John was excited for his new room and

house, there was also testimony that he wished he could "move" the house to "Ohio." The

GAL expressed additional concerns, which were reiterated in the magistrate's decision, that

if John were to move, he would have to start over after developing a solid foundation at

Kings. While Maria claims John is more accustomed to his life in Ashville, she appears to

downplay John's involvement in the Kings' community. Notwithstanding that John has likely

developed connections in the Ashville community, the record also reflects that John is

connected to the Kings' community in most aspects of his life, including his education, his

counseling, and his social life. Thus, we cannot say the court did not consider John's wishes

or his connection to both communities when it denied Maria's relocation request.

       {¶ 46} Lastly, Maria claims the Teays School District is comparable to Kings, and

that the magistrate erred in concluding that John should not relocate because he may not

have access to the same services if he moved. As noted above, Maria had the burden of

demonstrating the move and change were in John's best interest. Aside from her testimony

                                            - 16 -
                                                                     Warren CA2023-03-030

that the districts were "comparable" according to "Niche.com," Maria did not produce any

evidence relating to the services John could receive at the Teays School District, nor did

she produce evidence relating to the district's quality of education, class size, or athletic

programs. Maria also did not provide any plan for continuing John's counseling services to

treat his anxiety. Without any additional evidence on the topic, it is unclear from the record

if John could participate in the same activities, or have access to the same programs and

services, if he moved to Ashville.

       {¶ 47} In light of these variables, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding

a change in school districts was not in John's best interest at the time of the hearing. That

is, based on all the foregoing, we conclude there is competent and credible evidence to

support the domestic relations court's decision to deny Maria's request to relocate John to

Ashville. We emphasize that our resolution of Maria's first assignment of error primarily

turns upon the abuse of discretion standard of review. As our sister courts have noted,

              "[d]iscretion necessarily connotes a wide latitude of freedom of
              action on the part of the trial court, and a broad range of more
              or less tangible or quantifiable factors may enter into the trial
              court's determination. Simply put, two trial courts could reach
              opposite results on roughly similar facts and neither be guilty of
              an abuse of discretion."

Eitel's Towing Serv. V. D H Trucking, Inc., 4th Dist. Ross No. 21CA3753, 

, citing McGee v. C&S Lounge, 

(10th Dist.1996).

Consequently, while the members of this court may have reached a different result, the

court's decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary, and we decline to find the domestic

relations court's decision constituted an abuse of its discretion or was against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

       {¶ 48} Therefore, finding no merit to Maria's claims, her first assignment of error is

overruled.


                                             - 17 -
                                                                       Warren CA2023-03-030

       {¶ 49} Assignment of Error No. 2:

       {¶ 50} THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO GRANT APPELLEE ADDITIONAL

PARENTING TIME WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶ 51} In her remaining assignment of error, Maria argues the domestic relations

court abused its discretion in awarding Rachel additional parenting time. Maria first claims

the   magistrate     erred   in   "rapidly"   providing   Rachel   additional   parenting   time.

Notwithstanding this argument, Maria contends the issue is moot given Rachel's apparent

execution of the additional parenting time without issue. Maria also argues that Rachel

should not be afforded additional parenting time if such additional parenting time is used as

a basis to prevent John's relocation to Ashville.

       {¶ 52} We review the modification of a parties' shared parenting plan regarding

visitation or parenting time for an abuse of discretion. Mack, 

. As

noted above, an abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment or law; it connotes

that the trial court's decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore, 

.

       {¶ 53} As noted above, the domestic relations court modified the shared parenting

agreement to transition Rachel to Basic II parenting time. Even when assuming the issue

presented by Maria in this assignment of error is not moot, we find no abuse of discretion

in the court's revision of the parenting time schedule. As discussed above, there was

credible evidence presented at the hearing that it was in John's best interest to spend more

time with Rachel. Not only is it clear Rachel desires to spend more time with John, the

record reflects John desires, and could benefit from, additional time with Rachel as well.

John is well bonded with Rachel, is affectionate with her, and is integrated into her life.

Although Maria is concerned with Rachel's ability to remain consistent without potential

                                                - 18 -
                                                                    Warren CA2023-03-030

legal consequences, the record reflects Rachel was prepared to purchase her own home if

John remained in Kings School District and was ready to provide stability and consistency

for John if given the opportunity to do so. Moreover, the record indicates the court was

aware of Rachel's pending criminal matters, but evidently gave more weight to the GAL's

testimony that Rachel had demonstrated sufficient consistency in the several months

leading up to the hearing, and was ready to transition to unsupervised parenting time.

       {¶ 54} When this court reviews the evidence in its entirety, we conclude the domestic

relations court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Rachel additional parenting

time. A domestic relations court must be free to evaluate all of the evidence and determine,

based on the entire record, the child's best interest. In re R.N., 10th Dist. Franklin No.

04AP-130, 

. That is what the domestic relations court did in this case.

Although Maria is concerned with the "rapid" schedule set forth in the court's decision, the

court's schedule is consistent with the recommendation of the GAL, and slowly transitions

Rachel to unsupervised overnight parenting time with John within a five-month time frame.

Such a schedule is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and is not contrary to John's best

interest.

       {¶ 55} In light of the foregoing, Maria's second assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 56} Judgment affirmed.


       PIPER, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.




                                            - 19 -