FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 11DU074617
G. STAFFORD and NICOLE A. CRUZ, Attorneys at Law, for
L. ENGLISH, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL, PRESIDING JUDGE.
T.M. appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. We reverse and
T.M. ("Mother") and W.B. ("Father")
divorced in 2013. Mother and Father have two biological
children, both of whom are minors. The divorce decree
included a shared parenting plan, which designated both
parties as residential parents and legal custodians, but
designated Father as the residential parent for school
purposes. The shared parenting plan indicated that Mother
would have possession of the children on alternating
weekends, and every Wednesday after school until the
following morning. During the summers, the children were to
alternate between Mother and Father's houses on a weekly
Although this case has a lengthy post-decree procedural
history, this Court will limit its recitation of the facts to
the motion practice and hearing that precipitated this
appeal. Relevantly, Mother filed a motion to modify the
shared parenting plan. The trial court considered that
motion, among others, during hearings that occurred between
July 2015 and April 2016. The parties reached an in-court
agreement relative to certain issues in April 2016. The
parties, however, did not reach an agreement with respect to
a school year possession schedule for their children.
Instead, they agreed that they would defer to the trial
court, and would accept the schedule it set forth.
Subsequent to the in-court agreement, Father filed a summary
of the agreement and Mother moved the trial court to adopt
the in-court agreement. Thereafter, Father sent a proposed
judgment entry to the trial court, the guardian ad litem, and
Mother's counsel. He then sent them an amended proposed
judgment entry. The trial court adopted the amended proposed
judgment entry in full. Mother moved for relief from the
trial court's judgment, and - with that motion still
pending - filed a notice of appeal with this Court.
Mother's merit brief raises two assignments of error for
OF ERROR I
TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADOPTING A
PROPOSED JUDGMENT ENTRY WHICH DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE
TERMS OF THE PARTIES' APRIL 1, 2016 IN-COURT AGREEMENT.
In her first assignment of error, Mother argues that the
trial court abused its discretion by adopting the proposed
judgment entry because it did not accurately reflect the
parties' in-court agreement. Mother argues that the
judgment entry conflicts with the in-court agreement as it
relates to a number of issues, including which parent is the
residential and custodial parent, Father's relocation,
the summer possession schedule, and the school year
Regarding Father's relocation, Mother asserts that the
in-court agreement reflects that Father was permitted to
relocate once within the Elyria or Midview school districts
without prior approval from the court. Subsequent
relocations, however, would require the court's approval.
Mother argues that, contrary to the ...