S.S. v. T.M.

[Cite as S.S. v. T.M., 2025-Ohio-1827.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

S.S., :

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant, :

No. 114147

v. :

T.M., :

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 22, 2025

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Domestic Relations Division

Case No. DR-14-352342

Appearances:

Law Firm of Joan Jacobs Thomas and Joan Jacobs

Thomas, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Bartos & Company, LPA, David S. Bartos, and Timothy G.

Spackman, for appellant/cross-appellee.

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:

Appellant/cross-appellee T.M. (“Father”) and appellee/cross-

appellant S.S. (“Mother”) appeal and cross-appeal the judgment issued by the

domestic relations court granting, in part, Mother’s motion to modify their shared

parenting plan and denying Father’s motion to amend the shared parenting plan.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

This case involves the modification of the medical decision-making

authority under the parties’ Shared Parenting Plan (“SPP”). Mother and Father

were divorced in 2015 and have one minor child, who was born in March 2013.

Under the original SPP, the parties shared medical decision-making authority, and

both parties could schedule and attend routine physical exams and optical and

dental appointments for the child. The parties were to discuss nonemergency

medical, dental, orthodontic, psychological, or optical expenditures before incurring

the expense. If the parties did not agree on nonemergency treatment for the child,

the parties were to accept the recommendation of the treating healthcare provider.

Until December 2021, the parties followed SPP without involving the court.

In early December 2021, Father filed a motion to show cause alleging

that Mother failed to communicate with him regarding the child receiving the

COVID-19 vaccination by waiting to notify him until Mother and child were nearly

at the location, where the child ultimately received the vaccine. Thereafter, Mother

filed a motion to modify parental rights seeking to be designated sole decision-

maker for the child’s healthcare. At Father’s request, the parties were ordered to

mediation in February 2022. In May 2022, the case was returned to the trial court’s

docket after an unsuccessful attempt at mediation.

In November 2022, upon Mother’s motion, the parties were referred

to Family Evaluation Services for a brief focused assessment regarding whether one

parent should be designated the sole medical decision-maker for the child. The

evaluator recommended that Mother be the sole medical decision-maker.

Thereafter, Father filed a motion to amend SPP in March 2023, seeking to retain the

same plan with the additional provision that the health-care provider’s

recommendation would not control if it infringed on either parent’s parental rights.

The matter proceeded to trial before the magistrate in May 2023.

Father proceeded pro se, while Mother was represented by counsel. Father and

Mother were the only witnesses who testified, and each of them presented dozens of

exhibits. The parties testified to numerous interactions between the two of them

regarding their child and the testimony revealed that they would rarely agree on

anything, specifically nonemergency medical decisions. As the magistrate noted:

The decision to have the minor child receive the COVID-19 vaccine is

the issue that brought to the forefront the difficulties the parties have

with communication and making medical decisions for the minor child.

Beyond communication issues the evidence presented during the trial

showed that the parties take vastly different approaches to decision

making at least as far as the child is concerned. It was apparent from

the testimony and evidence that at times the joint decision making

process between the parties does not take a few days but rather months.

[Mother] testified that at times she will agree to go along with the

decision that [Father] favors because he “is relentless.” Further she

testified that every medical decision is a battle.

The minor child received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine over the

objection of [Father]. [Mother] was in favor of the minor child

receiving the vaccine, [Father] was against the minor child receiving

the vaccine. The parties had multiple conversations regarding the

topic. Their discussions began in late August 2021 when the parties

had a telephone conversation wherein, they went over the PowerPoint

presentation that [Father] prepared on the issue. They had email

communication about the subject through October. Like many people

on opposite sides of the pandemic/vaccine issue neither party was able

to do or say anything that swayed the opinion of the other parent.

[Father] testified that he did not think that they had a conversation

because [Mother] did not care about his concerns, she only was

providing her concerns. In his email to [Mother] on September 15,

2021 (Ex D) [Father] in his last bullet point offered some options to see

if they could come to some middle ground with regard to the issue of

the child being vaccinated. His suggestion included waiting until the

safety trials on the vaccine concluded, having the child tested to see if

he already had COVID-19 and has natural immunity, talk to experts on

each side or take a closer look at each vaccine. When questioned about

a middle ground, [Mother’s] response was there was no middle ground,

the child either received the vaccine or he did not receive the vaccine.

(Magistrate’s Decision, Sept. 18, 2023.)

At the conclusion of trial, all of Mother’s exhibits were admitted

without objection by Father. Dozens of Father’s exhibits were admitted with specific

limitations over Mother’s objection. Fourteen of Father’s exhibits were excluded.

Finally, the report of Family Evaluation Services was admitted as a court’s exhibit.

On September 18, 2023, the magistrate issued a ten-page decision

slightly modifying the SPP and finding that

it is in the best interest of the minor child that the Shared Parenting

Plan be modified to allow [Mother] to make medical decisions for the

minor child, but not to the exclusion of [Father]. The parties have

Shared Parenting therefore all decisions as they relate to the child need

to be discussed in advance of a decision being made. Therefore, the

Magistrate finds that prior to any medical decision being made by

[Mother] the parties need to discuss the issue/decision to see if they are

in agreement. The discussion will include from both parties their

reasons for and, their reasons against the decision in question. In the

event they are not in agreement the parties together will discuss the

options with the child’s treating physician. If after discussion with the

treating physician, the parties are still unable to reach an agreement

on a medical issue then [Mother] will be able to make the final

decision. [Emphasis added to denote change.]

The Magistrate further finds that the parties will maintain the child’s

current pediatrician, dentist, and orthodontist, and other current

medical providers unless they agree in writing to change a provider and

their choice of new provider. In the event a current provider is no

longer available due to change in insurance, the provider retires from

practice, or the provider determines he/she no longer wishes the child

to be a patient of the practice the parties should follow the following

protocol to determine a new provider. If there is a need for a change in

provider for one of the above stated reasons the parties will each

investigate other providers and each provide three names of potential

providers with the benefits they see for each professional to the other

within 30 days of learning of the need for the change. In the event each

parent includes the same provider on their list of three, that provider

will be selected as the new provider of care. The providers must be

included on any insurance the parties have for the child and accepting

new patients. The parties will then each investigate the providers

presented by the other parent. If they are unable to agree on a

provider 30 days after the names were exchanged [Father] will be

permitted to choose the new provider from the list of names they

considered. [Emphasis added to denote change.]

The Magistrate further finds that [Mother] is permitted to give her

consent for the child to talk to the school counselor. [Father] shall

support the child talking to the counselor. In the event the school

counselor determines that the child needs additional counseling

beyond the scope of the school counselor or during the summer when

school is not in session [Mother] shall select the counselor taking into

consideration insurance available and out of pocket costs for the

counseling. [Father] shall be provided the same access as [Mother] to

any counselor for the child. [Emphasis added to denote additional

term.]

(Magistrate’s Decision, Sept. 18, 2023.)

Both parties objected to the magistrate’s decision, disagreeing with

the magistrate’s factual findings and conclusions. On June 20, 2024, the trial court

overruled both parties’ objections and adopted, without modification, the

magistrate’s decision in its entirety.1 The trial court noted that

both parties filed objections in narrative form, the specifics of the

objections and facts in contention buried in the text, so many needles

in the haystack for the Court to search out. Both parties expend much

effort addressing dicta in the Magistrate’s Decision. Both parties

engage in ad hominem attacks on the other. . . .

This case is a battle of parties’ opinions on [the child’s] medical care.

No medical expert reports or testimony were offered. [Mother] and

[Father] have different philosophies regarding medical care. They

disagree on health care decision making.

This case turns on the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses.

Where a magistrate has conducted the trial, heard and seen the

witnesses testify, “the trial court could rely on the magistrate’s

determinations regarding credibility when reviewing a magistrate’s

decision.” (Citations omitted.) Hurricane Dev., L.L.C. v. Fourtounis,

2017-Ohio-927, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.).

The Magistrate having heard and seen the witnesses determined that

the best course was to modify the health care provisions of the SPP,

adding more specific provisions. The Court agrees.

(J.E. June 20, 2024.)

Father and Mother appealed. Father raises two assignments of error

for our review and Mother raises one.

Father’s Assignment of Error I: In an action to modify parental

rights and responsibilities, the trial court committed reversible and

prejudicial error and abused its discretion in modifying the existing

shared parenting plan by designating Mother the final medical decision

maker which was against the manifest weight of the evidence and not

in the best interest of the minor child.

1 By adopting the magistrate’s decision without modification, the trial court

inherently adopted the magistrate’s findings. Accordingly, we will reference the

magistrate’s findings as if they are the trial court’s findings.

Father’s Assignment of Error II: The trial court’s decision to

modify parental rights and responsibilities and to designate Mother the

final medical decision maker is in derogation of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)

and thus was not supported by the required statutory findings and

evidence and must be reversed.

Mother’s Assignment of Error: The trial court erred as an abuse

of discretion in specifically amending the shared parenting plan to

include the following language, since it does not serve the best interest

of the child [giving the Father any input in medical decisions

provider2].

II. Law and Analysis

A. Standard of Review

It is well-established that decisions of a trial court involving the care

and custody of children are accorded great deference. In re J.W., 2017-Ohio-8486,

¶ 19 (8th Dist.), citing Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988). Thus, a trial

court’s judgment allocating parental rights and responsibilities will not be disturbed

absent an abuse of discretion. Id., citing Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418

(1997). We also review a trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decision under an

abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Vannucci v. Schneider, 2018-Ohio-1294,

¶ 21 (8th Dist.), citing Abbey v. Peavy, 2014-Ohio-3921, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.). “When

applying an abuse of discretion standard, we cannot substitute our judgment for that

of the trial court.” Id. at ¶ 22. An abuse of discretion occurs if a court exercises its

judgment in an unwarranted way regarding a matter over which it has discretionary

authority. Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35.

2Mother quotes the entire journal entry as part of her assignment of error. We

summarized her argument for a more coherent assignment of error.

Nevertheless, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s factual

findings under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard. In re N.J.V., 2019-

Ohio-2234, ¶ 19-20 (8th Dist.), citing Wallace v. Wallace, 2011-Ohio-4487, ¶ 10 (9th

Dist.). In In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, the Ohio Supreme Court reexplained the

manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard as follows:

When reviewing for manifest weight, the appellate court must weigh

the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of

the witnesses, and determine 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 and

a new trial ordered. [Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20.] “In

weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of

the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21. “The

underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court

rests with the knowledge that the trial judge 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., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80,

461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). “‘If the evidence is susceptible of 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.”’ Id. at fn. 3, quoting

5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 603, at 191-192

(1978).

Id. at ¶ 14.

B. Modification of a Shared Parenting Plan

1. Modification of a Term

For ease of discussion, we will address Father’s second assignment of

error first, wherein Father asserts that the trial court failed to find that “a change of

circumstance” occurred before modifying the SPP, which Father contends is

required under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) citing Hynd v. Roesch, 2017-Ohio-7448 (11th

Dist.), in support. Father’s argument, however, is misplaced.

R.C. 3109.04(E) governs the modification of a shared-parenting

decree or plan. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) governs the requirements for the modification of

“a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities.” Such a modification

requires a finding that (1) there has been a change in circumstances of the child,

residential parent, or either parent, (2) the modification is in the child’s best interest,

and (3) the benefits resulting from the change will outweigh any harm. Whereas

division (E)(2) allows the modification of the terms of shared-parenting plan. For

the court to modify under this section, it must find that the modification is in the

best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(E)(2).

The Supreme Court of Ohio discussed the different standards in

Fisher v. Hasenjager, 2007-Ohio-5589. In Fisher, the Court explained that “[a]n

order or decree is used by a court to grant parental rights and responsibilities to a

parent or parents and to designate the parent or parents as residential parent and

legal custodian.” Id. at ¶ 29. Whereas “a plan includes provisions relevant to the

care of a child, such as the child’s living arrangements, medical care, and school

placement.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 30, citing R.C. 3109.04(G). The Court

explained that R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) refers to a modification of a prior decree

allocating parental rights and responsibilities while (2)(b) refers to a modification

of the terms of a shared-parenting plan.

In Hynd, unlike the instant case, the parents did not have a shared-

parenting plan and the decree denoted mother as residential parent and legal

custodian. Hynd at ¶ 27. Although the decree did not set forth an express directive

recognizing mother as the parent with medical-decision-making authority, it was

inferred because mother was the residential parent and legal custodian. Id. When

the trial court granted father’s motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities,

specifically granting father medical-decision-making authority, the court did so

without making a change-of-circumstances determination. Id. at ¶ 28. The

Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision

with instructions to make the proper findings under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), because

the trial court did not have authority to modify a decree without such findings.

(Emphasis added.) Id.

In the instant case, the parties have a SPP and Mother moved to

modify the medical-decision-making authority, which is a term in the SPP.

Therefore, R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) applies and it provides that

[t]he court may modify the terms of the plan for shared parenting

approved by the court and incorporated by it into the shared parenting

decree upon its own motion at any time if the court determines that the

modifications are in the best interest of the children or upon the request

of one or both of the parents under the decree. Modifications under

this division may be made at any time. The court shall not make any

modification to the plan under this division, unless the modification is

in the best interest of the children.

Because the trial court only modified a term of the SPP, it was not

required to make “a change of circumstances” finding or weigh the benefit and harm

to the child as necessitated under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2). Accordingly, Father’s second

assignment of error is overruled.

2. Best Interest of the Child

In Father’s first assignment of error, he contends that the trial court

“failed to cite any factors it considered under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(j), making the

best interest finding arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.” (Father’s brief p. 17.) R.C.

3109.04(F)(1) sets forth factors for the trial court to consider when analyzing the

best interest of the child. It states:

(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 or a modification of a decree

allocating those rights and responsibilities, 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;

(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.

Contrary to Father’s assertion, the trial court addressed each of the

applicable factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). The magistrate stated:

The Magistrate finds that [Mother] wants the Shared Parenting Plan to

be amended to the extent that she alone is the parent that makes

medical decisions for the minor child to the exclusion of [Father].

[Father] does not want [Mother] to be the parent making the medical

decisions for the child. [Father] wants to continue to have the parties

make joint decisions regarding medical decisions for the child and to

follow the recommendations of the child’s treating physician if they do

not agree. [Father] does want the medical provision of the Shared

Parenting Plan modified to the extent that no medical professional,

charged with making a medical decision for the child, because the

parents were unable to agree on the medical decision, be permitted to

impede the legal rights of the parents. The Magistrate finds that

[Father] believes that federal legislation gives a parent a right to refuse

treatment of a medical treatment that has not been fully approved.

The Magistrate did not interview the minor child with regard to his

wishes and concerns regarding the issue of medical decision making.

The Magistrate finds that the child spends equal time with each of his

parents. The Magistrate finds that that [Mother] believes that the child

shows apathy toward school. The Family Evaluation Services report

also set forth that in interviews with the child’s fourth grade teachers it

was reported the child was intelligent and quiet, though apathetic

about his education. The child is receiving an “A” grade in all subject

areas. The Magistrate finds that the parties have an ongoing

disagreement surrounding the extracurricular activities in which the

child participates.

The Magistrate finds that both [Father] and [Mother] love the minor

child and the minor child loves his parents. The Magistrate is

concerned by the fact that the child would tell his mother that he does

not trust her like he trusts his father. The Magistrate is further

concerned by the information surrounding court and the court process

the child is aware of and the inclusion of the child in matters that should

strictly be handled by the adults in his life.

The Magistrate finds that [Mother] engages the services of a mental

health provider. The Magistrate further finds that no evidence was

presented that suggested that due to [Mother] seeking the services of a

mental health provider that she is somehow unfit to be the parent to

make medical decisions for the child. The Magistrate finds that no

evidence was presented as to whether [Father] engages in mental

health counseling. The Magistrate finds that [Father] experienced

Atrial Fibrillation approximately 15 years ago, but since has had no

other heart issues. The Magistrate finds that no evidence was

presented that [Mother] has any ongoing physical health issues.

The Magistrate finds that no evidence was presented that either parent

was planning on relocating outside Ohio.

The Magistrate further finds that no evidence was presented to suggest

that either parent was more likely to honor and facilitate parenting time

than the other parent. No evidence was presented that either parent

continuously or willfully withheld the child from the other parent.

(Magistrate’s Decision, Sept. 18, 2023.)

The trial court then went on to consider some of the best-interest

factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(2). Specifically, the trial court considered the

parties’ ability to cooperate and make decisions jointly and the ability of each parent

to encourage the sharing of love, affection, and contact between the child and the

other parent. R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)(a) and (b). It is here where the magistrate

determined that the parties had some difficulties, stating that

[t]he Magistrate finds that a plethora of evidence presented showed the

inability of the parents to make joint decision for the medical care of

the child. The child received routine medical and dental care. But

when decisions had to be made that went beyond routine care the

parents have not shown the ability to cooperate and compromise their

positions. Neither changed their position on the COVID-19 vaccine, the

child received the vaccine over the objection of [Father] based upon the

recommendation of his treating physician. To the extent the child

receives an annual flu shot it is over the objection of [Father] and based

upon the recommendations of his treating physician. The parents

discussed but never agreed to a new dentist for the child. [Mother]

went along with [Father’s] choice of orthodontist in order to get the

child the orthodontic treatment he needed. [Mother] dictated the

dermatologist that she took the child to for a baseline exam without the

input of [Father], although she did inform him in advance of making

an appointment that she wished to take the child to that particular

dermatologist. [Father] took the child for an eye exam without

informing [Mother] of any concerns with the child’s eyesight or that he

had in fact made an appointment for the child to be seen by a local

optical center. [Father] intends to eventually have the child examined

by a cardiologist over the objection of [Mother] and no evidence was

presented as to whether the child’s pediatrician has recommended the

examination. The Magistrate finds that the parties are unable to

cooperate and make joint medical decisions for the benefit of the child.

The fact that the child has received care does not mean that the parties

have cooperated and made joint decisions in the receipt of that care.

The Magistrate finds that another factor to consider is ability of each

parent to encourage the sharing of love, affection and contact between

the child and the other parent. The Magistrate finds that no evidence

was presented that one parent denies the other parent his/her

parenting time. The Magistrate has concerns that the child receives

information from [Father] that makes the child question [Mother] or

keep things from her. Specifically, the Magistrate is concerned that the

minor child would report to his mother that he does not trust her as

much as he trusts his father. No evidence was presented to suggest that

[Mother] has done anything to the child that would question his ability

to trust her. The Magistrate finds that the minor child has two parents

that love him, neither of his parents should do or say anything to the

child to suggest that one of his parents does not love him enough or is

not acting in the child’s best interest.

(Magistrate’s Decision, Sept. 18, 2023.)

Contrary to Father’s assertion, the trial court thoroughly set forth all

of the factors considered when making the final decision to modify the medical-

decision-making term of the SPP.

Father also argues that the trial court’s decision modifying the term

requiring the parties to “accept the recommendation of the treating healthcare

provider” was against the manifest weight of the evidence because even when the

parties disagreed on medical care, the recommendation of the healthcare

professional was historically followed, which followed the original SPP. Father

asserts that final decision-making authority should remain with the healthcare

provider, because Mother “intend[s] to exclude Father entirely from participation in

[the child’s] medical care.” (Father’s brief, p. 17, citing Mother’s testimony at tr. 94.)

Father’s fears are not without merit because in Mother’s sole

assignment of error, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not

excluding Father completely from the child’s medical decisions. She contends that

she should have sole medical-decision-making authority because the evidence

establishes that the Father defies all attempts of Mother to work together.

Contrary to Mother’s assertion, the trial court noted numerous

examples of how the parties interact ultimately concluding that “[n]either party

appears to consider the other’s opinion on any issue.” (Emphasis added.) The trial

court specifically found that

the parties love their son and want what he/she believes is best for him.

Unfortunately for the child, they cannot agree on what is best for the

child. The evidence showed that every issue becomes a fight. Neither

parent presented evidence to show one time where one expressed a

want, desire, concern for the child and the other agreed with that

same want, desire, concern and followed the requested course of

action. The Magistrate finds that the parties have poor

communication, but they do communicate. They exchange emails, text

messages, and they even have telephone communication. But all the

communication does not matter if neither is willing to listen and

consider the other parent’s positions or concerns.

(Emphasis added.) (Magistrate’s Decision, Sept. 18, 2023.)

The trial court detailed several examples where both parties refused

to agree with each other about medical interventions, as well as numerous other

topics. The trial court, however, concluded that Mother followed the SPP by

attempting to discuss interventions with Father, while Father did not. The trial

court based this decision on several examples where Mother initiated the

conversation with Father regarding the child seeing a specialist, then the parties

would go back and forth ad nauseum and rarely come to a decision. Thereafter,

Mother would visit the child’s pediatrician for the referral. Whereas, when Father

wanted the child to see a specialist and Mother would not agree, Father would not

visit the pediatrician. So, the next time Father wanted the child to see a specialist,

he bypassed Mother completely and informed her after the fact.

In addition, the trial court noted that in a number of communications,

Father was condescending to Mother. The court stated that “[h]e includes subtle

and not so subtle threats of further court intervention. Often [Father’s] responses

are couched in a manner that imply that [Mother’s] position was harmful to the child

or somehow not in the child’s best interest. At times he provides her choices with

dire consequences for her if she does not make the correct choice. Additionally, he

reminds her of his Second Amendment Right to own a firearm.” (Magistrate’s

Decision, Sept. 18, 2023.)

The magistrate repeatedly stated that both parties love their child,

spend equal time with their child, and have his best interests at heart, but “both

know that they do not coparent effectively, and not surprisingly they disagree about

what process they should participate in to assist them in being better co parents.

[Father] has suggested they participate in joint counseling. [Mother] does not

believe that joint counseling would be good for her mental health. She suggested

that if [Father] were to get individual counseling, she might be willing to reconsider

joint counseling. She has also suggested the utilization of a parent coordinator as

set forth in their Shared Parenting Plan. [Father] does not believe a parent

coordinator will be effective. No consensus, therefore ongoing gridlock, and court

intervention.” (Magistrate’s Decision, Sept. 18, 2023.)

Unfortunately, the record is clear that both Mother and Father bait

and antagonize each other about all things involving their child. This was evident at

trial when the testimony took several days because neither party would answer the

questions directly. Nevertheless, as the Twelfth District aptly stated, “[D]ecisions

concerning allocation of parental rights and responsibilities are guided by a child’s

best interest and should not be used as a [club] to punish a misbehaving parent [or

parents].” In re C.L.W., 2024-Ohio-1519, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.). Therefore, when

considering R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), “‘[n]o one factor is dispositive, and the court has

discretion to weigh the factors as it sees fit.’” In re N.J.V., 2025-Ohio-375, ¶ 52 (8th

Dist.), quoting In re C.L.W. at ¶ 40.

In this case, the record establishes that the magistrate considered the

best-interest factors, the four days of testimony, numerous exhibits, and the report

of the Family Evaluation Services, and eventually concluded that it was in the best

interest of the child that Mother and not the treating healthcare provider would have

the final decision-making authority when the parties could not agree on treatment

and that Father would have final decision-making authority if the parties could not

agree on a successor medical provider. The magistrate also addressed Mother’s

concerns regarding counseling and permitted Mother to consent to the child talking

to the school counselor. It is also clear from the record that the trial court reviewed

the entire record and adopted the magistrate’s decision after specifically noting that

the case turned on the credibility of the parties and the magistrate was in the best

position to assess their credibility. This court agrees.

Upon a thorough review of the record, we find the trial court’s

decision overruling the parties’ objections and adopting the magistrate’s decision

was not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, we find that the trial court’s decision

was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

Accordingly, Father’s first assignment of error and Mother’s sole

assignment of error are overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee/cross-appellant recover from appellant/cross-

appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment

into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

___________________________

MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and

DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR