Court Opinion

ID: 9882679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:18:25.87246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:41.542758
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re K.J.F., 2023-Ohio-3607.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COLUMBIANA COUNTY

                                                IN RE:

                                                K.J.F.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                          Case No. 23 CO 0004

                                      Juvenile Appeal from the
                             Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division
                                    of Columbiana County, Ohio
                                     Case No. C2010-0441-2-3

                                        BEFORE:
                 Carol Ann Robb, David A. D’Apolito, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                             JUDGMENT:
                                               Affirmed.

Atty. Tracey A. Laslo, 325 East Main Street, Alliance, Ohio 44601 for Appellant and

No Brief filed for Appellee.

                                      Dated: September 28, 2023
                                                                                        –2–

Robb, J.

          {¶1}   Appellant, A.N. (Mother), appeals the December 20, 2022 judgment
designating Appellee, K.F. (Father), the residential and custodial parent of the parties’
child, K.J.F., and ordering her to pay child support. Mother contends the trial court erred
by naming Father the residential parent. For the following reasons, we disagree and
affirm.
                                       Statement of the Case
          {¶2}   Mother and Father never married. Mother has been the residential parent
of the parties’ only biological child, K.J.F., since his birth in January of 2010. He is
currently thirteen years old. Mother also has a daughter, who was born in 2008. Father
has a father-daughter relationship with her, and he has enjoyed parenting time with both
of the children, even though the older child is not Father’s biological child.
          {¶3}   Both of the parties have since married. Father has two more children with
his current wife. The parties lived in neighboring school districts and have mostly handled
their parenting issues without court involvement until Mother’s husband accepted a job in
Alabama in 2021.
          {¶4}   The trial court case was initiated in 2010 with administrative child support
proceedings. Father was determined to be the biological father of K.J.F. and ordered to
pay Mother child support. The Columbiana County Child Support Enforcement Agency
moved the court to certify and adopt its administrative orders regarding parentage and
support. (November 4, 2010 Petition to Certify.) The trial court adopted the orders of
support and stated it was adopting and incorporating the agency’s administrative orders.
This judgment made Father the obligee and ordered him to pay child support. (March 7,
2011 Judgment.)
          {¶5}   Thereafter, several amended child support withholding orders were filed in
the trial court, each maintaining Father as the obligor and referring to Mother as the
obligee and custodial parent.
          {¶6}   In June of 2017, Father filed a complaint for companionship seeking
parenting time. His complaint indicates Father has been exercising parenting time without
a court order and he had the child every other weekend, Wednesday nights, and half of

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                      –3–

the summer. (June 19, 2017 Complaint for Companionship.) An Agreed Judgment Entry
was filed nine days later. It states the parties agree Father will have companionship per
the standard parenting time as outlined in Local Rule 9.4 and will enjoy parenting time
every other weekend during the school year and half of the summer. (June 28, 2017
Agreed Judgment Entry.)
       {¶7}   In the summer of 2021, Mother’s husband accepted a job in Alabama.
Mother testified she informed Father about her intent to relocate with the children in June
of 2021, and they moved in October of 2021. In September of 2021, Mother filed a notice
of intent to relocate. It states Mother and her two children were relocating to Alabama for
her husband’s new employment because of his significant increase in income.
(September 15, 2021 Notice of Intent to Relocate.)
       {¶8}   In response, Father moved for a change of parental rights and asked the
court to name him the residential and custodial parent of K.J.F. In the same motion,
Father asked the court to reassess the parties’ support obligations and rights to claim
K.J.F. for tax purposes. (November 15, 2021 Motion for Change of Parental Rights.)
Father also moved for a change of custody regarding Mother’s daughter in a separate
trial court case. The case regarding the daughter has a separate common pleas case
number but was heard via the same trial court proceedings.
       {¶9}   A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed. She filed her report in July of
2022. She interviewed both children, both parties, and Father’s wife. The GAL also
reviewed the court’s file and school records. She spoke with the children separately, and
states in her report that each child expressed their wishes to her. The GAL does not,
however, include the stated desires of the children in her report. (July 20, 2022 GAL
Report.)
       {¶10} The GAL indicates both parents have been honest and forthcoming and that
both can appropriately meet the needs of the children. The GAL noted Mother’s relocation
and her husband’s increase in pay allows her to be a stay-at-home mother to better meet
the needs of the children. The GAL also reported Mother had acclimated the children to
Alabama and had registered them for extracurricular activities and made friends in their
neighborhood. The GAL found that Mother had always facilitated Father’s visitation and
there had been no court involvement regarding visitation. The GAL also noted she

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                         –4–

believed Mother would continue to facilitate the long-distance parenting time and assist
with transportation consistent with Mother’s statements. (July 20, 2022 GAL Report.)
       {¶11} Regarding Father, the GAL found he was a good parent with a safe home.
She emphasized his dissatisfaction with their move and felt it negatively impacted the
children and his family. He complained about visitation issues since they relocated but
acknowledged there were no real problems during the two years before their relocation.
(July 20, 2022 GAL Report.)
       {¶12} The GAL recommended maintaining Mother as the residential and custodial
parent and the current visitation arrangement. The GAL stated it was in the children’s
best interests to relocate to Alabama with Mother because “she has been their residential
parent their entire lives and she has always permitted [Father] access and visitation with
both children.” (July 20, 2022 GAL Report.)
       {¶13} The GAL sought the appointment of independent counsel for the child
K.J.F., which was granted. The court indicates in its judgment granting this motion that
the child’s wishes are adverse to the GAL’s recommendations. (July 25, 2022 Judgment.)
       {¶14} Father moved for an in camera interview of K.J.F. The change of custody
trial was held September 30, 2022. The child was interviewed after the hearing on the
merits. There is no transcript of the in camera hearing, and there is nothing in the record
indicating whether it was recorded.
       {¶15} The trial transcript reveals the following. Mother testified first on cross-
examination. She said K.J.F. was twelve years old at the time of the hearing and in sixth
grade. His sister was in the eighth grade and was fourteen years old at the time. Mother
testified both children have always lived in the Columbiana County area with her and have
attended the same school. Father has also lived in that area in a neighboring school
district. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 5-8.)
       {¶16} Although Father was not the biological father of K.J.F.’s older sister, he filled
that role and Mother agreed for him to have parenting time with her. (September 30, 2022
Tr. 8-9.) Mother married her current husband in 2020. She acknowledges he has a
history of alcohol use. He also occasionally smokes marijuana. She was aware he had
a prior felony criminal charge of possession of drugs and violated his probation by testing

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                     –5–

positive for drugs. He had to serve 60 days in the county jail. She married him the day
after he was released. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 11-12.)
       {¶17} Mother’s husband quit his local job with his family business because the
company changed his position from salaried and made his job hourly.               He felt
disrespected. So, he accepted a job in Alabama. Mother left a job earning $15 an hour
and had a new job in Alabama for about six months, but has since become unemployed.
       {¶18} Mother recalls telling Father about their plan to relocate in June at her
daughter’s birthday party. She said her husband moved at the end of July, and they all
sat down to discuss the move about a week or two before then. She planned for Father
to continue to see the kids and said they discussed it, but did not reach a formal
agreement about visitation. Mother said she would never keep the children from him.
(September 30, 2022 Tr. 15-18.)
       {¶19} She planned to bring the children back to Ohio once a month for his
parenting time, and she said she has done that since moving. It is a ten hour-drive each
way, which includes three stops. Her parents still live in Ohio, who the children would
see about once a month before the move. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 19-22.) Father also
has relatives in Ohio including grandparents, who the children saw less frequently after
they relocated. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 23-25.) K.J.F. also has two half-brothers,
Father’s two other children, who were ten and seven years old at the time of the hearing.
The boys are relatively close with one another.
       {¶20} Mother testified that when they lived in Ohio, Father rarely visited with the
children mid-week, even though it was provided for in the parties’ agreement. After the
move, K.J.F. often contacted his father and spoke to him through his gaming console.
(September 30, 2022 Tr. 26.)
       {¶21} Mother described Father as a good parent who has been regularly involved
in their children’s lives. Mother also agreed he has been a father to her daughter even
though he is not her biological father.
       {¶22} Mother also testified that she has cohabited with her current husband for
the majority of her children’s lives for about 12 years, since the kids were one and two
years old. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 37-38.) She believes they have a good relationship

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                         –6–

with her current husband. They are not aware he went to jail or that he uses marijuana.
(September 30, 2022 Tr. 40-42.)
        {¶23} K.J.F. has an individualized education program, which affords him extra
assistance at school. She believes the services he needs are better at his new school in
Alabama, explaining he gets more one-on-one time in Alabama. He also plays football
and basketball, but he did not get to play the year of the move because the timing of
tryouts. K.J.F. told her that he wanted to see his father more. (September 30, 2022 Tr.
50-52.)
        {¶24} On direct, Mother introduced numerous text messages showing she keeps
Father up to date regarding the children’s sports and school schedules, photographs, and
illnesses. She described how both children are excelling in the Alabama school district
and generally doing well and have adjusted to life in Alabama. K.J.F. has new friends
and is active in sports there, including football and track. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 215-
217.)
        {¶25} Father testified on direct examination that he has been acting as a father
toward Mother’s daughter since she was an infant. He was dating Mother at the time.
She calls him dad, and he has attended father-daughter dances with her. She has her
own bedroom at his house. Father lives with his wife and their two sons, who are ages
ten and eight. K.J.F. has his own room there as well, but when he visits, he likes to share
a room with his younger brothers. He is close with them. K.J.F. also has a close
relationship with his grandmother, Father’s mother, who lives nearby and his stepmother’s
parents. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 56-61.)
        {¶26} According to Father, he and Mother had a good relationship when she lived
in Ohio. She would sometimes contact him for assistance when the children were having
behavioral issues, and he regularly had the kids every other weekend during the school
year and every other week during the summer months. Father resides in the neighboring
school district, but K.J.F. has friends in that district, and Father coaches athletics in that
district. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 62-66.)
        {¶27} Father testified that Mother did mention her husband may be taking a job in
Alabama, but Father said he did not know they were actually moving until the day before
it happened. Since they relocated, he said he has seen the children, but not as much as

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                         –7–

he had, and not on a regular basis. It is difficult for him to visit them there because of the
long distance and since he and his wife both have jobs and their sons are in sports. His
visits with K.J.F. and his sister have been limited as a result of the relocation. Even if the
court split up the two children, Father wants to continue regular visitation with K.J.F.’s
sister. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 73-74, 79-81, 86.)
       {¶28} Father left his full-time job to return to school. He has since finished and
started his own company, but it was not successful. His most recent employer has had
difficulty fulfilling his child support payments, so Father began making them directly.
(September 30, 2022 93-94.) On cross-examination, Father agreed he continues to have
a lot of access to K.J.F. They talk a few times a week. Both children are on individualized
education programs. K.J.F. has attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Mother, however,
took care of most of the schooling issues and medical appointments for both K.J.F. and
his sister. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 108-109.)
       {¶29} Father does not have major concerns about Mother’s husband or his
treatment of the children. Father believes K.J.F.’s relationships with his siblings and
extended family members have been diminished since the move and that it is in his son’s
best interest to live with Father, his wife, and two half-brothers. K.J.F. has friends who
live in Father’s neighborhood as well.
       {¶30} K.J.F. and his sister have always resided with one another and have
consistently visited with Father together. She had her last name changed to be the same
as Father’s, and she has been aware since then that he is not her biological father.
(September 30, 2022 Tr. 124-126.)
       {¶31} Father’s wife also testified. She has been married to Father for ten years.
She described K.J.F.’s and her two sons’ relationship as inseparable. They play video
games, ride bikes, and play outside together. Her parents have also been active in the
kids’ lives. They watch them sometimes and take them on vacation. (September 30,
2022 Tr. 136-140.)
       {¶32} Mother’s husband testified. He explained that the drugs for which he was
arrested were found in his company truck and did not belong to him. He also said he
uses marijuana for his arthritis and anxiety. He does not use it near the children, and they
do not have access to it. He has been with Mother since the children were one and three

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                       –8–

years old. He taught them how to ride bikes when they were younger. He believes he
has a good relationship with both. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 158-162.)
        {¶33} He moved to Alabama for his new job. He said he is earning $35,000 more
a year now than when he worked in Columbiana. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 168.) He has
two adult children and has a lifelong spousal support obligation since one of his children
was deemed unable to care for himself. He uses marijuana for his arthritis pain relief
because other medications did not help him. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 181-2.)
        {¶34} Mother testified on direct that she worked briefly after the move, but she has
since become a stay-at-home mother. She intends to work again eventually but had no
plans at the time of the hearing. She had previously worked part time for a cleaning
company. She explained that the kids were sick the few times the children did not visit
Father since they moved. Mother introduced photocopies of text messages she had sent
Father notifying him about the children’s illnesses, activities, and school calendar. Mother
also introduced a copy K.J.F.’s report cards showing he earned all A’s and one B at his
new school. She also introduced photographs depicting their new home with a swimming
pool and basketball hoop. She said the children are happy and well-adjusted to life in
Alabama and that K.J.F. had made several friends there. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 198-
215.)
        {¶35} During Mother’s testimony, the court indicated it was going to break for the
day for the court to conduct the in camera interviews. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 215.)
        {¶36} The transcript reflects they went off the record, and when they returned on
the record, the judge stated he had conferenced with the parties’ attorneys regarding the
further scheduling of evidence. When mother’s attorney is asked if she intended to
present further evidence, she stated she had “thought about calling the Guardian Ad
Litem, but we are going to put [the] Court report [in] as an exhibit then.” (September 30,
2022 Tr. 221-222.)
        {¶37} The trial court concluded the proceeding indicating it would conduct the in
camera interviews at that point with only the GAL and K.J.F.’s counsel present.
(September 30, 2022 Tr. 223-224.)
        {¶38} The trial court issued its decision on October 25, 2022 and granted Father’s
motion regarding K.J.F. It named Father the residential parent of K.J.F., and determined

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                           –9–

Mother would continue to have custody of her daughter. The court also ordered the
parties to have long distance visitation with the child who is not living with them and
ordered the parties to prepare child support calculations. In support of its decision, the
trial court found that because there had never been an adjudication designating either
parent as K.J.F.’s residential and legal custodian, both parents were equal under the law.
And thus, the determination is based on the best interests of the child as set forth in R.C.
3109.04(B)(1). (October 25, 2022 Judgment.)
       {¶39} Upon addressing the best interest factors, the court found all factors were
equal except three. The court found that K.J.F. expressed a strong desire to live with his
father. The court also found that K.J.F. had better and more significant relationships with
family members in Ohio rather than Alabama. Last, the court found K.J.F. was better
adjusted to his school and community in Columbiana County rather than Alabama, where
he had lived for less than a year. (October 25, 2022 Judgment.) The court issued its final
judgment ordering child support in December of 2022. (December 20, 2022 Judgment.)
       {¶40} Mother raises one assignment of error. Father has not filed a brief.
                                       Assignment of Error
       {¶41} Mother’s sole assignment of error asserts:
       “The trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting legal custody of [K.J.F.]
to Plaintiff-Appellee [Father] as such decision was against the manifest weight of the
evidence and was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that such decision
was in [the child’s] best interest.”
       {¶42} Mother contends the court abused its discretion in granting father’s motion
for custody. She claims the court erred in its best interest analysis by failing to address
numerous considerations. First, she claims the court erred by failing to employ the
necessary consideration that Mother was the primary caregiver of K.J.F. since his birth
13 years earlier and she has been his primary caregiver all his life.
       {¶43} Mother also claims the court failed to consider that since her relocation and
her husband’s increased income, she is able to be a stay-at-home mother, which she
could not do before. Mother also claims the court failed to consider the reduced bond
K.J.F. will have with his sister, and the negative effect it will have on her as well. The
court also failed to consider that K.J.F. will have to enter a third school district in the same

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                            – 10 –

year, which likely will have negative effects on his learning. She also claims that Father
has had difficulty or issues fulfilling his child support obligations.
         {¶44} Last, Mother takes issue with the court’s failure to address the GAL’s
investigation and recommendation and the shortening of the hearing without the GAL’s
testimony.     For all of these reasons, she claims the court’s best interest analysis
constitutes an abuse of discretion and should be reversed.
         {¶45} Upon treating both parents as standing on equal ground, the court invoked
the best interest of the children test in R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) and (F)(1). These sections
state:
         (B)(1) When making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities
         for the care of the children under this section in an original proceeding * * *,
         the court shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of
         the children. In determining the child's best interest for purposes of making
         its allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the
         child and for purposes of resolving any issues related to the making of that
         allocation, the court, in its discretion, may and, upon the request of either
         party, shall interview in chambers any or all of the involved children
         regarding their wishes and concerns with respect to the allocation.
         (F)(1) In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to this section,
         whether on an original decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities
         for the care of children * * *, the court shall consider all relevant factors,
         including, but not limited to:
         (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 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;

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                        – 11 –

       (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 * * * 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.
       {¶46} Appellate courts review best interest determinations for an abuse of
discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs if the court's decision is unreasonable, arbitrary,
or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
When reviewing for an abuse of discretion, the fact that the reviewing court would have
reached a different result is not enough to find error. Id. “[R]esults can often vary in
different cases, as there can be more than one reasonable decision from which the trial
court could choose.” Sokolowski v. Sokolowski, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 16 JE 0028, 2017-
Ohio-9216, 101 N.E.3d 1105, ¶ 41, quoting Yancey v. Yancey, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07
MA 33, 2007-Ohio-5045, ¶ 25.
       {¶47} The function of the court of appeals is not to weigh the evidence, but to “
‘ascertain from the record whether there is some competent evidence to sustain the
findings of the trial court.’ ” Foxhall v. Lauderdale, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0006,
2011-Ohio-6213, ¶ 28, quoting Clyborn v. Clyborn, 93 Ohio App.3d 192, 196, 638 N.E.2d
112 (3d Dist.1994).
       {¶48} Although the trial court was required to consider all relevant factors, the
statute does not require a court to address each listed factor considered in its written

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                        – 12 –

decision. In re J.K., 7th Dist. Carroll No. 14 CA 899, 2014-Ohio-5502, ¶ 31. Moreover, a
court is presumed to consider the factors absent evidence to the contrary. Id. citing In re
Henthorn, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 00BA37 (Nov. 28, 2001).
       {¶49} Here, the court identified the best interest test and the correct statute before
setting forth its analysis.   The court also noted that because Mother had been the
residential parent via statute, instead of judicial allocation, it was required to treat the
parties equally under the law.       The trial court found all best interest factors were
essentially equal except three before explaining why these three factors warranted
granting Father’s motion. The court found K.J.F. expressed a strong desire to live with
his father; K.J.F. had more significant relationships with family members in Ohio; and it
also found he was better adjusted to his school and community in Columbiana County
rather than Alabama.     (October 25, 2022 Judgment.)
       {¶50} We agree the court did not mention K.J.F.’s reduced bond with his mother
and sister that may result from this change. It likewise did not mention that his mother
has always been the child’s primary caregiver, that she is now a stay-at-home parent, or
that he would have to enter a third school district, which may be detrimental. These
considerations are certainly relevant and important. Nevertheless, these items were
presumably encompassed by the court’s statement that all factors were essentially equal.
These considerations arguably fall under the statutory considerations a court is required
to consider, including the child’s interrelationships with his parents and siblings and the
factor requiring the court to consider the child's adjustment to his home, school, and
community.     As for Mother’s ability to be a stay-at-home mother, this was likely
encompassed by the court’s consideration of K.J.F.’s “interaction and interrelationship
with [his] parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's
best interest * * *.” R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(C).
       {¶51} As for Appellant Mother’s allegation that Father had difficulty fulfilling his
child support obligations, there was some testimony in this regard, but the evidence and
argument at the hearing did not establish that he “failed to make all child support
payments, including all arrearages, that are required of [him].” Instead, he testified a
certain employer had difficulty fulfilling his support obligation. Father also testified he had
the support come directly from his bank account during one period of time. Thus, although

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                      – 13 –

there were issues with child support payments, there was nothing evidencing he “failed
to make all child support payments, including all arrearages, that are required of [him.]”
R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(g).
       {¶52} Finally, Mother takes issue with the court’s failure to address the GAL’s
recommendation and the shortening of the hearing without the GAL’s testimony. Mother
claims the court was required to consider the report pursuant to Sup.R. 48.06(C)(2) and
that it did not address the report in its analysis or decision.
       {¶53} Sup.R. 48.06(C)(2) states: “The court shall consider the recommendation
of the guardian ad litem in determining the best interest of the child only when the report
or a portion of the report has been admitted as an exhibit.” Rules of Superintendence do
not have the same force as statutes and do not generally create substantive rights in
individuals. In re J.S., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2016-07-141 and CA2016-07-142, 2016-
Ohio-7833, ¶ 12. Thus, noncompliance with a rule of superintendence is generally not
grounds for reversal. In re. B.J., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2016-05-036 and CA2016-
05-038, 2016-Ohio-7440, ¶ 57.
       {¶54} As alleged, the trial court judgment acknowledged the GAL report was
admitted, but the court does not indicate whether it considered the recommendation of
the GAL and does not mention the substance of what the GAL recommended.
Notwithstanding, the GAL recommended Mother continue as the child’s residential and
custodial parent. Her recommendation is based on the premise that Mother has been the
custodial and residential parent since K.J.F.’s birth.       The GAL stated it was in the
children’s best interests to relocate to Alabama with Mother because “she has been their
residential parent their entire lives and she has always permitted [Father] access and
visitation with both children.” (July 20, 2022 GAL Report.)
       {¶55} Thus, the court was required to consider it here since it was admitted. While
there is nothing showing the court considered the GAL report and recommendation, there
is also nothing evidencing it did not. Although the court does not explicitly reference each
of the issues or considerations raised by Mother in her brief, it was not required to list
every item it considered when making its decision.
       {¶56} Regarding the shortened duration of the hearing, Appellant Mother’s
attorney agreed on the record it was acceptable. And although she mentioned she was

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                       – 14 –

going to call the GAL to testify, her attorney also agreed to have the GAL report submitted
instead. (September 30, 2022 Tr. 221-222.)
       {¶57} Furthermore, we also acknowledge certain courts have held that courts
“should give strong consideration to whether one of the parents was the primary caregiver
for the child or children.” In re N.M., 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24110, 2010-Ohio-5048,
¶ 23, quoting In re Maxwell, 8 Ohio App.3d 302, 456 N.E.2d 1218 (1982). We agree this
bond and continuation of care is paramount to a child’s development and relevant when
assessing the best interest of the child. However, it is not a presumption in the law or
one of the listed factors in R.C. 3109.04(F). Further, there is nothing evidencing the court
did not consider this detail when assessing K.J.F.’s bond and relationship with both
parents.
       {¶58} Mother was the residential parent of K.J.F. for more than 12 years.
Furthermore, the GAL found, and the record shows, that she has consistently and
historically made the children available for parenting time with Father and kept him
involved with the children and informed about matters in the children’s lives. Since they
relocated, she attempted to maintain a monthly visitation with him during the school year,
and she would even drive the children from Alabama to Ohio. Her efforts, however, were
thwarted on occasion by illnesses.
       {¶59} Notwithstanding Mother’s efforts and commitment to her son, the court
granted Father’s motion based on K.J.F.’s connections with his family and friends in
Columbiana County, as compared with Alabama, as well as the child’s stated desire to
live with his father, expressed during the in camera interview. There is no doubt that
K.J.F. has significant connections to his family members in Alabama as well, but he simply
had fewer friends and family members in Alabama since he spent the first 12 years of his
life in Ohio. Absent more, we cannot find the court failed to consider his Mother’s status
as residential parent for 12 years and her commitment to her son. The evidence was
before the court. The trial judge was in the best position to determine the credibility of the
witnesses, weigh the evidence, and consider the best interest factors.
       {¶60} The record shows K.J.F. has two caring parents who are capable of
meeting his needs, and both demonstrated a commitment to his well-being and expressed
a desire to be his residential parent. Given the testimony, and the presumption the court

Case No. 23 CO 0004
                                                                                  – 15 –

is to view both parents on equal ground when awarding custody, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in awarding custody to Father. We must defer to the trial court's
discretion in this matter since it did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable manner. Accordingly, we conclude Mother’s sole assignment of error
lacks merit.
                                          Conclusion
       {¶61} Based on the foregoing, we cannot find the trial court’s decision is
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accordingly, we find no error and affirm.

D’Apolito, P.J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.

Case No. 23 CO 0004
[Cite as In re K.J.F., 2023-Ohio-3607.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error is
overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division of Columbiana County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to
be taxed against the Appellant.
        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

                                          NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.