Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Preston v. Preston

August 5, 2010

DANNY PRESTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JESSICA PRESTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



CIVIL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Abele, J.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶1} This is an appeal from a Lawrence County Common Pleas Court judgment that granted the parties a divorce and allocated the parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' minor child.

{¶2} Jessica Preston, defendant below and appellant herein, raises the following assignments of error for review:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN ORDERING AN EQUAL TIME SHARED PARENTING PLAN WHERE EACH PARENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED THE RESIDENTIAL PARENT WHEN THE CHILD IS IN THAT PARENTS [SIC] PHYSICAL CUSTODY."

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN DESIGNATING THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE AS RESIDENTIAL PARENT FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES."

{¶3} The parties married on August 23, 2004, and had one child, born in February 2006. On January 8, 2007, appellee filed a complaint for divorce.

{¶4} After a hearing, the magistrate issued a decision that recommended that the trial court designate appellee the residential parent and legal guardian, and that appellee and appellant have equal parenting time, alternating every four days. The magistrate found that appellee is more inclined to facilitate parenting time than appellant. The magistrate further observed that the parties had successfully shared equal parenting time.

{¶5} Appellant objected to the magistrate's decision. On June 19, 2008, the trial court overruled appellant's objections. The court found that the magistrate "essentially ordered a joint custody arrangement as between the parties, designating [appellee] as the residential parent for purposes of enrollment into school or other similar matters. Further, each parent shall be considered the residential parent of the parties' minor child when the child is in their custody. This Court finds no legal basis for modifying the Magistrate's recommendation regarding the custody arrangement."

{¶6} On July 21, 2008, appellant filed a notice of appeal, which apparently was voluntarily dismissed.*fn1

{ΒΆ7} On September 23, 2009, the trial court issued a divorce decree that granted the parties "equal shared parenting * * * on an alternating four (4) day basis." The court designated appellee the child's residential parent for school purposes, and ordered that each parent be considered the child's residential parent ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.