[Cite as Hice v. Hice , 2023
- Ohio
- 4497.] 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

JEFFREY D. HICE , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
vs. LAUREN E. HICE , Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO

. C

- 230 178 TRIAL NO

. DR210 0 298

O P I N I O N

.

Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas , Domestic Relatio ns

Division Judgmen t Appealed From Is : Affirmed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 13, 2023

Berry & Karl

, LLC , and B

. Bradl ey Berry , for Plaintiff

- Appellee , Ha hn Loeser & Parks , LL P , Elis é K. Yarnell and Courtney Caparella

- Kraemer , for Defendant

- Appellant

.OH IO FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL S

2 K INSLEY , J udg e 

### . {¶1} Defendant

- appellant Laur en Hice ( “ Mother ” ) appeals the decisi on of the Hamilton County Domestic Re lations Cour t na mi ng plaintiff

- appellee Jeff

ery Hice ( “ Father ” ) as the residential parent for school registration purposes for their child,
C.H. In a sing le assign ment of err or, Mother argues that the trial court abused i ts disc retion in reaching this dec ision

. 

### {¶2} Because th e trial court appropriately weighed the competing testimony of Mother and F a ther a nd prioritized the best interest of C.H., the trial court did not abuse its d iscretion in na ming Father as the residential parent for school registration
pu rposes. Accordin gly, we overrule Mother ’ s assi gnment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial co urt.
Factu al and Procedural History


### {¶3} Mother and Father were married in 2014 , and C.H. , who i s now seven years old, is the ir only child

. In 2 021, Father f i led his complaint for divorce. 

### {¶4} On May 10, 2022, the trial court held a hearing regarding C.H. ’ s kind ergarten placement

. At the hearing, Mother testified that C.H. was at tending both The Children’s School in the Oak Hill School District , which was closer to Mother’s home , and The Goddard School ( “ Goddard ” ) in the Little Miami School District , which was close r to Father’s home

. Both Mother and Father requested that C.H. be placed in the kindergarten that was geographically closest to them

. Mother and Fat h er also testified that both sets of C .H

. ’ s grandpar ents were involved in C .H. ’ s scho ol transportation

. Father further testified that C. H. was thriving at Goddard

. B ased on this testimony , the trial court rule d that it would be in C. H

. ’ s best interest t o continue attending Goddard

. Mother moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied

.OH IO FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL S

3 

### {¶5} On Februar

y 1 5, 2 023, the trial court held a final hearing on the issue of
C

. H. ’ s school place ment

. At the heari ng, Father test ified that if he were named the

re si dential parent for school reg istr ation purposes, he would enroll C. H. at the Little Miami Early Chil dh ood School ( “ Little Miami ” )

. He further testified that Litt le M ia m i

was eight minutes from his home and that some studen ts who atten ded Goddard with
C. H. would also attend Little Miami for the first grade. He also testified that C.H. ’ s pat erna l grandfather a ssisted him with school transportation for C.H. and would

con tinue to do so. He testified that t here was also a b us stop for Little Miami near
C.H. ’ s maternal grandparents ’ home. He testified that if C .H. attended Little Miami,
C.H. would have after

- school care at Goddard an d that bussing would be provided between the two locations. Father also testified that he had some flexi bi lity in his work sch ed ule and that if there was ever an emergency with C .H . at school, he could call out of work i f needed

. 

### {¶6} Mother testified t hat if she was named the residential parent fo r school

re gistration pur poses, she would enroll C.H. at Oakdale Elementary School (“Oa kd ale”). Mother testifi ed that Oakdale was nine minutes from her home and that it would take her over one hour to get to Little Miami from her home. S h e further testif ied t hat Oakdale provided after

- school care in the same building an d that C.H. ’ s
matern al grandmo ther occasionally assisted with C.H.’s school transporta tion . But she also testified that C.H. ’ s maternal grandmother would not be able to continue doin g this given her work schedule

. And she testified that if C .H. were to take the bus from Lit tl e Miami to h is maternal grandparents ’ home, they would not be present

. 

### {¶7} Melanie Metz, C. H. ’ s k indergarten teacher at Goddard , also testified at the hearing . S he testi fied that in the year she had been teaching C.H., she noti ced thatOH IO FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL S

4 he had become less s hy and more out going

. She fur ther testified that C. H. was a leader
in the classroom . She al so te stified that Goddard foll owed Little Miami ’ s ki n dergarten curriculum. 

### {¶8} In its final decision on school placement , the tria l co urt found that it was in C. H. ’ s best interest to attend Little Miami

. I n making this finding, the trial court relied on Metz ’ s testimony and conclud ed that it was important to maintain stability and contin uity in C.H. ’ s life

. The trial court further noted that bot h sets of grand paren t s living close to Little Miami pro vided a built

- in support syste m that could alleviate some of the parties ’ burden of liv ing far apart

. 

### {¶9} The t rial c ourt entered a fina l judg ment entry and decree of div orce . Mother now ti mely appeal s . Abuse of Discretio n 

### {¶10} Mother ’ s sole assign ment of error alleges that the trial court erred in designating Father as the residential parent for school registration purposes. 

### {¶11} We review a trial court’s custody decision for an abuse of discretion. Saylor v. Saylor , 1st Dist. Ham ilton No. C

- 190463, 2020

- Ohio

- 3647 , ¶ 10. “An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment and implies that the court’s attitude is unr easonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” (Internal quotation marks omi tted.) Rummelhoff v. Rummelhoff , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 1 900355, 2020
- Ohio

2928, ¶ 17
. Facts N ot in Evidence


### {¶12} In her first issue presented for review, Mother contends that the trial

c ourt relied on facts not in evidence in rea ching its decisio n . Specifically, MotherOH IO FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL S

5 asserts that the tri al court incorrectly ass umed that C.H. ’ s maternal grandparents could assist in scho ol transportation for C.H. Further , Mother argues that it was unclea r exactly how many students , if any, from Goddard woul d transfer to Lit tle Miami for the first grade. 

### {¶13} The trial court, however, ac knowle dged that C .H. ’ s maternal
gra n dpare nts ’ work schedule made it diff icult for them to assist Mother with C.H. ’ s school trans portation. And in light of th is, the trial court also considered that there

were m ultiple option s f or after

- school transportati on from Little Miami. Further, the trial cou rt noted that C.H. ’ s maternal grandmo ther had historically picked up C.H. on Mot h er ’ s days with C.H

. In fact, Metz contradicted Mother ’ s testimony th at C.H. ’ s maternal grandmother on ly occasionally pi cked up C.H. by testifying tha t s he observed C.H. ’ s grandmother picking up C.H. on most da ys that Mother had C.H

. Addition ally, Mother testified th at for part of the week, she worked until late evening and would rely o n C.H. ’ s maternal g randmother to pick up C.H. on those days. 

### {¶14} Importantly, while Mother emphasizes t hat the trial c ourt did not hear testimony from C.H. ’ s maternal grandpar ents as to their willingness and ab ility to assist with school transp ort ation, she does not exp lain wh y C.H. ’ s maternal grandpar ents did not testify or submit an affidavit. If Mother believed that t he involvement of C.H

. ’ s maternal grand parents in C.H. ’ s school transportation wa s a crucial issue in determi ning school placement, she was free to submit evid ence to th at effect before the trial court. 

### {¶15} Because Mother did not, the trial court was left with the competing testimony of Mother and Fat her. And the trial court was in the best position to obser ve the witnesse s ’ demea nor and weigh their credibility

. Lemon v. Lemon , 5th Dist. StarkOH IO FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL S

6 No. 2010 CA 00 319, 2011
- Ohio

- 1878, ¶ 52. As the appe llate cou rt, “ [o]ur role is to determine whether there is relevant , competent , credible evidence upon which the factfinder could base his or her judgme nt. ” Id

. 

### {¶16} Given F ather’s testimony that the re were multiple options for school transportatio n to and from Little Miami, Metz’s tes timony that C .H. ’ s maternal grandmother w as actively involved in C.H.’s school transportation, and Mother’s

te stimony that she would require C. H. ’ s maternal grandmother ’ s assistance with school tr ansportation for at least part of the we ek , there was relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the trial court based its judgment that the proximity of both sets of grandp arents to Li ttle Mi ami created a built

- in sup port system for C.H

. See id

. 

### {¶17} Mother ’ s argument as to the number of chil dren that would follow C.H. from Goddard to Little Miam i fail s for similar reasons. Mother focuses on the exact number of c hildr en that would transfer schoo ls with C.H. It was not t he exact number that was relevant to the trial court’s decision, but rathe r the fact that there was definitive testimony from bo th Father and Metz that C.H. would have at least a few familiar classmates at Littl e Miami. Thus, the re was also relevant, comp etent, and credible evidence up on w hich the trial court determined that C.H. made friends at Goddard School who may travel with him to Little Miami. See id

. 

### {¶18} Acc ordingly , we hold that the trial court did not abuse its d iscret io n in relying on testimony regarding the involvement of C.H. ’ s grandparents in s chool transportation and the possibili ty of familiar classmate s for C.H. at Little Miami

.OH IO FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL S

7 Reliance on the Temporary School P l acement Order


### {¶19} Next , Mother argue s that the trial co urt relied too h eavily on the temporary order placing C .H. at Goddard for kinder garten

. But this argument ignores the trial court ’ s detailed summary of t he final hearing on school placement for C.H. In fact, the trial cou rt did not reference testimony fr om the prior hearing at al l and only considered testimony from the final hearing

. Mother ’ s argument mischaracterizes the trial court ’ s decision and is th erefore without merit

.

Proximity of S chools to Parental Homes and Wor kp laces


### {¶20} Last ly , M other asserts that th e trial court abuse d its discretion by ignoring the impact of th e distance between Little Miami and Mother ’ s home and workplace. 

### {¶21} As with most of t he issues in this case, the tria l court had to weigh competing testim ony from Mother and Father. Whil e Father testified that hi s home was an eight

- minute drive to Little Miami, Mother testified th at h er home is over an hour away from Little Miami and only a nine

- minute drive f rom Oakdale

. Thus, it was clear from the testimony that eith er Mother or Father would be driving a substa ntially greater distance to C.H. ’ s schoo l

. 

### {¶22} But it was also clear t hat Father had more support near him. Further , Metz testi fied that C.H . had shown significant progress at Goddard , which was

s omewhat of a feeder school for Li ttle Miami and also utiliz ed the curriculum from Little Miami. Face d with parents living in distant school districts, the trial court prioritized the sta bility and continuity of C.H.’s education , and we see no reason to disturb that finding. While we sym pathize with the inconveni ence Mother faces in light of this decision , Father would have experienced that same inconvenience had theOH IO FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL S

8 trial court ruled in Mother’s favor. Because t he trial court’s decision places the greate st emphasis on the best interest of C.H., it was not an ab use of discretion. See Fritsch v. Fritsch , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 140163, 2014

- Ohio

- 5357, ¶ 18 (noting that determinations as to the designation of the residential par ent must be in the best interest of the child). 

### {¶23} Therefore, we ov errule Mother ’ s assi gnment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court

. C onc lusi on 

### {¶24} Bec a use the trial court appropriate ly balanced the compe ting t estimony of Mother and Father with the best interest of C.H., we hold that the trial court did no t abuse it s discretion i n naming Father as th e residential parent for school registration purposes. Accordingly, Mother ’ s assignment of error is overru led , and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed

. Judg men t affirmed.

Z AYAS , P.J., and B OCK , J., c oncur .

Please n ote: T he court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion

.