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.

McGlumphy v. Hess

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

January 11, 2017

KATHINA K. MCGLUMPHY Appellee
v.
STEVEN L. HESS Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 2004-01-0353

          LARRY D. SHENISE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          CHRISTINE D. FINAN, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          BETH WHITMORE, JUDGE

         {¶1} Appellant, Steven Hess ("Father"), appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that found it was in the best interest of his daughter ("Daughter") for her to live with her mother, Appellee Kathina McGlumphy ("Mother"). For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Mother and Father are the parents of a teenage daughter. They have never been married to each other. In 2005, they agreed to shared parenting. In their agreement, they wrote that Daughter would attend school in the district where Mother lived, which they later clarified was the Manchester school district. In 2014, Father moved to terminate the shared parenting plan after Mother informed him that she intended to move to Dover, Ohio. Following a hearing, a magistrate recommended that the shared parenting plan be terminated and that Father be designated the residential parent. Mother objected to the recommendation. The trial court sustained her objections, finding that the magistrate's decision was not consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence. It declined to terminate the shared parenting order. Instead, it found that it was in the best interest of Daughter for her to live primarily with Mother and for Mother to be the residential parent for school purposes. Father has appealed, assigning three errors, which we will address together.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

         THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING MOTHER'S OBJECTIONS BY HOLDING THAT THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

         THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

         THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO PROPERLY CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ...


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.