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.

Heidi Syverson v. Kyle Syverson

December 3, 2012

HEIDI SYVERSON APPELLANT
v.
KYLE SYVERSON APPELLEE



APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 07DU068461

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Whitmore, Presiding Judge.

Cite as Syverson v. Syverson,

ss:

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Heidi Syverson ("Mother"), appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. This Court reverses. I

{¶2} Mother and Defendant-Appellee, Kyle Syverson ("Father"), divorced in 2008. At that time, the trial court journalized a shared parenting plan for the care of their two children: a girl ("Daughter"), born in 1994, and a boy ("Son"), born in 1999. Because only Father had filed a shared parenting plan and the plan the court adopted was different than the plan Father had filed, this Court reversed the trial court's judgment on appeal and remanded the matter for further proceedings. See Syverson v. Syverson, 9th Dist. No. 09CA009527, 2009-Ohio-6701. After this Court's remand, the parties mediated and signed an agreed upon entry, which the court later adopted as its order.

{¶3} The divorce decree named both Mother and Father as residential parents and legal custodians of Daughter and Son. The parties agreed that if either intended to change residences in the future he or she would file a notice of intent to relocate. They further agreed: "[t]he residential parent for school enrollment purposes shall not change the residence of the children to any County not contiguous to Lorain County without the prior written permission of the other parent or the permission of the Court having been first duly obtained." Mother was named the residential parent for school enrollment purposes.

{¶4} On May 9, 2011, Mother filed a notice of her intent to relocate to Mother and Father's hometown of Williston, North Dakota. Father responded by filing a motion to modify the allocation of the parties' rights and responsibilities. The court conducted an in camera hearing with Daughter and Son as well as a hearing on Mother's motion to relocate. The court concluded that Mother had failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances had occurred since the adoption of the parties' shared parenting plan and denied her motion. The court also refused to modify the parties' rights and responsibilities, as both parties agreed a modification would be unnecessary if the court denied Mother's motion.

{¶5} Mother now appeals from the trial court's judgment and raises five assignments of error for our review. For ease of analysis, we consolidate the assignments of error. II

Assignment of Error Number One

THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT ARE UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE, WHICH WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A SHARED PARENTING PLAN.

Assignment of Error Number Two

THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEN THE MINOR CHILDREN OF THE PARTIES DESIRE TO RELOCATE, WHICH WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A SHARED PARENTING PLAN.

Assignment of Error Number Three

THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR FAILED TO PERMIT APPELLANT TO PUT ON EVIDENCE OF HER CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEN MOTHER'S EMPLOYMENT CEASES TO GRANT INCREASES, REDUCES ITS EMPLOYEES, AND MOTHER FINDS ...


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.