Court Opinion

ID: 9802350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 09:04:58.610757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:11.929044
License: Public Domain

Dickinson, Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 19} I concur in the majority’s judgment and most of its opinion. I do not, however, concur in the statement in paragraph 16 that “[t]o the extent that the trial court intended its finding related to the daughter to demonstrate a change in circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in doing so, as that finding is not supported by the evidence adduced at trial.” This court reviews whether a finding is supported by sufficient evidence de novo. See, e.g., State v. Mima, 9th Dist. No. 25540, 2011-Ohio-3798, 2011 WL 3300684, at ¶ 11. If it is not supported by sufficient evidence, it must be reversed. A trial court does not have discretion to make a finding that is not supported by sufficient evidence, and to say that the trial court abused its discretion in doing so is to confuse two very different standards of review.