[Cite as Southworth v. Eskins, 2014-Ohio-4523.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

FAYETTE COUNTY 

JAMIE LEE SOUTHWORTH, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2013-10-028 

 

 : O P I N I O N

 - vs - 10/13/2014 

 : 

CLINT EUGENE ESKINS, : 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. 08 AD 0082 

Ryan S. Reed, 214 Scioto Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078, for plaintiff-appellant 

Jamie Williams, P.O. Box 53, 323 Main Street, Duncan Falls, Ohio 43734, for defendantappellee 

 PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Jamie Southworth (Mother), appeals a decision of the 

Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, awarding custody of the couple's 

child to Clint Eskins (Father). 

{¶ 2} Mother and Father, who were not married, had a child in 2007. Father's 

parentage was established by the juvenile court, and he was ordered to pay child support to 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 2 - 

Mother. Father was also granted liberal visitation with the child, and has been very active in 

the child's life since the child's birth. 

{¶ 3} In 2011, Mother moved the juvenile court for permission to relocate to Michigan 

with the couple's child so that she could marry a man she met online who resided there.1

 

Father eventually agreed to Mother's move, and the parties agreed to parenting time. The 

juvenile court issued an agreed judgment entry setting forth the parenting time the parties 

had agreed upon, and Mother moved to Michigan with her two children in order to marry her 

fiancé. However, once Mother relocated to Michigan, she did not marry her fiancé. Instead, 

Mother began a serious relationship with Jordan Gonzalez, a Tier III sexual offender. 

{¶ 4} Father learned of the relationship, and questioned Mother about it. Mother 

admitted that Gonzalez was a sex offender, but was somewhat evasive as to the details. 

Upon learning that Gonzalez was a Tier III sexual offender, and that the child was spending 

time alone with Gonzalez, Father filed a motion to change custody based upon a change in 

circumstances. 

{¶ 5} The juvenile court held a hearing on Father's motion, and granted it. The 

juvenile court determined that there had been a change in circumstances when Mother 

moved to Michigan and began a relationship with a sexual offender. The juvenile court 

ordered that Father have custody of the child, and Mother have visitation. The juvenile court 

also ordered that the child was not to be in the presence of Gonzalez during Mother's 

visitation. Mother now appeals the juvenile court's decision, raising the following assignment 

of error: 

{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING 

THAT A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRED IN THE CHILD OR RESIDENTIAL 

 

1. Mother has another child by a different father, and that child also moved to Michigan with Mother. 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 3 - 

PARENT'S LIFE, AND IN DETERMINING THAT IT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE 

CHILD TO CHANGE CUSTODY AND TO REALLOCATE PARENTAL RIGHTS AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE APPELLEE. 

{¶ 7} Mother argues in her assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding that 

a change of circumstances occurred, and in granting custody of the child to Father. 

{¶ 8} Trial courts are entitled to broad discretion in custody proceedings. Davis v. 

Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997), paragraph one of the syllabus. As "custody issues are 

some of the most difficult and agonizing decisions a trial judge must make," the judge must 

be given "wide latitude in considering all the evidence" and the decision must not be reversed 

absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 418. The term abuse of discretion "connotes more than 

an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). 

{¶ 9} We presume that the trial court's findings are correct because the trial court is 

"best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, 

and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony." Seasons 

Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). Therefore, deferential review in a child 

custody determination is especially crucial "where there may be much evident in the parties' 

demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well." (Emphasis sic.) Flickinger, 

77 Ohio St.3d at 419. 

{¶ 10} A trial court asked to re-designate parental rights and responsibilities is required 

to first find that a change in circumstances occurred to warrant a change in legal 

custodianship. Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53, 2007-Ohio-5589. R.C. 

3109.04(E)(1)(a), provides, in pertinent part, 

The court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental 

rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 4 - 

based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that 

were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a 

change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, [or] his 

residential parent, * * * and that the modification is necessary to 

serve the best interest of the child. 

{¶ 11} Although R.C. 3109.04 does not provide a definition of the phrase "change in 

circumstances," Ohio courts have held that the phrase is intended to denote "an event, 

occurrence, or situation which has a material and adverse effect upon a child." Preece v. 

Stern, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2009-09-019, 2010-Ohio-857, ¶ 10, quoting Rohrbaugh v. 

Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599, 604-05 (7th Dist.2000). In order to warrant the abrupt 

disruption of the child's home life, R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) also requires that the court make 

specific findings and also consider the best interests of the child. 

In applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential 

parent designated by the prior decree or the prior shared 

parenting decree, unless a modification is in the best interest of 

the child and one of the following applies: 

(i) The residential parent agrees to a change in the residential 

parent or both parents under a shared parenting decree agree to 

a change in the designation of residential parent. 

(ii) The child, with the consent of the residential parent or of both 

parents under a shared parenting decree, has been integrated 

into the family of the person seeking to become the residential 

parent. 

(iii) The harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is 

outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to 

the child. 

{¶ 12} Factors that must be considered when making a best interest determination are 

listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j). 

(a) The wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's care; 

(b) If the court has interviewed the child in chambers pursuant to 

division (B) of this section regarding the child's wishes and 

concerns as to the allocation of parental rights and 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 5 - 

responsibilities concerning the child, the wishes and concerns of 

the child, as expressed to the court; 

(c) 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; 

(d) The child's adjustment to the child's home, school, and 

community; 

(e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the 

situation; 

(f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved 

parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights; 

(g) Whether either parent has failed to make all child support 

payments, including all arrearages, that are required of that 

parent pursuant to a child support order under which that parent 

is an obligor; 

(h) Whether either parent or any member of the household of 

either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty 

to any criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child 

being an abused child or a neglected child * * *; 

(i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to 

a shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied 

the other parent's right to parenting time in accordance with an 

order of the court; 

(j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is 

planning to establish a residence, outside this state. 

{¶ 13} After reviewing the record, we find that the juvenile court properly determined 

that there was a change in circumstances once Mother became involved with a sex offender 

and began pursuing a marriage with him. Other courts have considered involvement with a 

sex offender to constitute a change in circumstances. See In re Marriage of Faulhaber, 11th 

Dist. Portage No. 2001-P-0110, 2002-Ohio-3380 (noting that appellant's choice to become 

involved with a sex offender was a valid factor to consider when determining a change of 

circumstances); and Smith v. Smith, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2005 CA 47, 2005-Ohio-6840 (finding 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 6 - 

a change of circumstances where the appellant married a sex offender, even though the two 

did not live together during their marriage because appellant's home was near a school and 

her husband was not permitted to live near a school). 

{¶ 14} The trial court heard evidence that since the time of the agreed entry allowing 

Mother to relocate, Mother moved to Michigan to pursue a marriage with a man she met on 

the internet. Once relocated, Mother did not marry the man, and instead, began a serious 

relationship with Gonzalez. Despite Mother knowing that Gonzalez is a registered Tier III sex 

offender who has lifetime reporting requirements, Mother did not inform Father that Gonzalez 

was a sex offender. 

{¶ 15} Father, a police officer who often investigates sexual abuse cases involving 

children, learned of Gonzalez's status as a sex offender and confirmed the material facts 

surrounding Gonzalez's convictions for sex-related offenses with minors.2

 Father confronted 

Mother, and Mother assured Father that Gonzalez is not a threat to children. Mother told 

Father that Gonzalez's convictions were specific to his having consensual sexual relations 

with minors when those minors looked older than they actually were, and had misrepresented 

their ages to Gonzalez. Mother also informed Father that Gonzalez had custody of his 

biological child, and that she and Gonzalez would not be living together until they were 

married. 

{¶ 16} At the hearing, Mother presented testimony from Gonzalez and his parents in 

an effort to demonstrate that Gonzalez does not pose a threat to children. Gonzalez's 

mother testified that Gonzalez poses no threat to children, and that he is a wonderful role 

model for his own son of whom he has sole custody. Gonzalez's mother testified that 

 

2. According to Michigan law, Gonzalez's crimes were classified as "criminal sexual conduct of the third degree," 

and "criminal sexual conduct of the fourth degree." 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 7 - 

Gonzalez attends church regularly and that he is raising his own son in a Godly manner. 

Gonzalez's mother also testified that in her belief, Mother and Gonzalez are moving toward 

marriage and have communicated to her their intention to be married. 

{¶ 17} On cross-examination, Gonzalez's mother testified that Gonzalez was convicted 

of sex-related offenses with minors, and that he abides by his reporting requirements. She 

also testified that Gonzalez has custody of his son, and that the child's mother has a history 

of drug abuse. Gonzalez's mother also testified that a court did not order that Gonzalez have 

custody of his son, but rather, the son's mother agreed that Gonzalez would have custody of 

the child. Gonzalez's stepfather also testified, and stated that he also believed that Gonzalez 

and Mother were moving their relationship toward marriage, and that Gonzalez poses no 

threat to children. 

{¶ 18} Gonzalez also testified, and stated that his relationship with Mother was 

"moving in" the direction of marriage. Gonzalez testified that Mother's child is safe and wellincorporated into his own family, and that Gonzalez considers Mother's child as his own child. 

Gonzalez also testified that he sought custody of his son, and that he and his son's mother 

were able to reach an agreement so that he has had custody of his son for six years. On 

cross-examination, Gonzalez testified that he watches Mother's child when she is working, 

and that he has been alone with the child on multiple occasions. Gonzalez testified that 

when he was 19 years old, he had sexual relations with two girls, ages 14 and 15, and that 

he served a year and a half in prison for his crimes. Gonzalez also testified that he has 

lifetime reporting requirements, and that he was classified as a Tier III sex offender. 

{¶ 19} Father then presented his case, and called Christopher DeHaven, the father of 

Mother's other child, to testify. DeHaven testified that he learned of Gonzalez's sexual 

offender status from some source other than Mother, and that when he confronted Mother, 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 8 - 

she claimed not to know the extent of Gonzalez's past. DeHaven also testified that he now 

has custody of the child he had with Mother, and that the child was afraid to return to 

Michigan because of something "in regards to Mr. Gonzalez." 

{¶ 20} Despite Mother's contention that Gonzalez poses no threat to the child because 

Gonzalez has been reformed, we agree with the juvenile court that Mother's involvement in a 

serious relationship with a Tier III sex offender and allowing her child to be alone with 

Gonzalez constitutes a change of circumstances. This is especially true where Mother's 

intentions are clear and unequivocal that she plans on marrying Gonzalez and having the 

child living in the same home as Gonzalez. Mother already permits Gonzalez to spend time 

with the child alone, and she was less than forthcoming about the pertinent facts and 

circumstances to Father. Gonzalez's convictions specifically involved minors, and his lifetime 

reporting requirements remain in place. Such a situation has a material and adverse effect 

on the child, so that a change of circumstances occurred. 

{¶ 21} As required by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), the juvenile court also made an express 

finding that the change in the child's environment "greatly outweighs the potential harm and 

danger to the child of being left" in the child's recent circumstances. We find no error in this 

conclusion. While it may be true that Gonzalez has made strides to overcome his past, the 

facts remain unchanged that he was convicted of sexual crimes against minors, and that the 

circumstances of his crimes were such that Michigan classified Gonzalez as a Tier III sexual 

offender and requires lifetime reporting requirements of him. 

{¶ 22} Mother did not present any evidence that moving the child to Ohio would be 

harmful, other than stating that the child was doing well in Michigan and was close to 

Gonzalez's son. We agree with the juvenile court that any possible harm caused by the 

move back to Ohio would be outweighed by the advantage of protecting the child from the 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 9 - 

dangers associated with exposing the child to a sexual offender. Any harm would also be 

outweighed by the advantage that Father and the child have a close and bonded relationship, 

and the child's extended family is located in Ohio. 

{¶ 23} The juvenile court also considered the pertinent R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j) 

factors and determined that it was in the child's best interest that Father have custody.3

 

Regarding the wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's care, the juvenile court 

considered that both parents wanted custody of the child. There is no indication in the record 

that the juvenile court interviewed the child in camera, so that the court did not consider the 

child's wishes. The juvenile court heard evidence that the child is bonded with Gonzalez's 

son, but also, that the child's extended family lives in Ohio. 

{¶ 24} The court recognized that the main issue was certainly Mother's relationship 

with Gonzalez, and that as an "other person who may significantly affect the child's best 

interest," it was concerning that Mother "would pursue a relationship with a sex offender 

whose victims were minors when she has two minor children." The juvenile court also heard 

evidence that the child was well-adjusted to his community in Michigan, but also, that Mother 

had moved to Michigan to marry one man, and then moved again after she ended that 

engagement. The trial court considered the evidence and testimony presented during the 

hearing, and properly balanced the pertinent factors before making its decision. We, 

therefore, find no abuse of discretion in finding that a balancing of the factors demonstrated 

that the child's best interests are served in Father's custody. 

 

3. Mother suggests in her brief that the juvenile court failed to make the necessary statutory findings in 

accordance with R.C. 3109.04. However, as previously discussed, the trial court did make an express finding 

regarding the harm of the move being outweighed by the benefit to the child. While the trial court did not list or 

discuss every best interest factor, the written decision makes reference to the statutory factors that were 

pertinent to the decision, and the overall decision demonstrates that the juvenile court considered and balanced 

all relevant factors before making its decision, as is required by statute. 
Fayette CA2013-10-028

 - 10 - 

{¶ 25} After reviewing the record, we find that the juvenile court properly found a 

change of circumstances had occurred since the time of the agreed entry, and properly 

balanced the statutory factors before finding that being placed in Father's custody is in the 

child's best interests. As such, Mother's sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 26} Judgment affirmed. 

RINGLAND, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.