from the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Family Court
Division Case No. 2015DR00986
Plaintiff-Appellee CHRISTOPHER DIONISIO
Defendant-Appellant DENISE K. HOUSTON COLLIN S. WISE Tzangas
Plakas Mannos Ltd.
JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Patricia A.
Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
HOFFMAN, P. JUDGE
Appellant Tyra Zwick appeals the judgment entered by the
Stark County Common Pleas Court, Family Court Division,
naming Appellee John Zwick residential parent of the
parties' two minor children.
OF THE FACTS AND CASE
The parties were married in 2006, and had two minor children:
a daughter born in 2005, and a son born in 2007. Appellee
filed the instant divorce action on October 2, 2015.
Appellant filed a proposed shared parenting plan with the
court. Appellee sought to be named sole residential parent of
the children, and did not file a proposed shared parenting
plan with the court.
Appellee continues to reside in the marital home in the
Canton Local School District, where the children have resided
since birth. The children have always attended school in the
Canton Local district.
After separating from Appellee, Appellant moved to a $385,
000 house in Green with her paramour. She believes the
schools in Green to be far superior to the Canton Local
schools, which she believes have problems with drugs and
bullying. She sought to move the children to Green with her
in order to attend school in Green. She has worked
occasionally as a bartender and has acted as an extra in
movies and commercials. She was employed part-time at a
business partially owned by her paramour. They have no plans
to get married.
The case proceeded to a hearing before a magistrate, with the
hearing focused primarily on the issue of custody of the
children. The magistrate found Appellant's proposed
shared parenting plan to be shared "in name only"
because it was so "lopsided that it was blatantly
unfair." The magistrate found the shared parenting plan
was not in the best interests of the child.
The magistrate recommended Appellee be named the residential
parent of the children, while giving Appellant nearly equal
time with the children. The magistrate found Appellee
represented stability and consistency, as appellee was
well-grounded with a strong support system.
The magistrate noted Appellant was a stay-at-home mom who was
actively involved with the children, but also found she
preferred a "partying lifestyle" to being with
family. The magistrate further found she raised concerns that
were both real and contrived, exaggerates, tends to be
dramatic, and is not entirely truthful or realistic in her
perceptions of the world. The magistrate found she was not
realistic about moving the children to Green where she had no
support system and her entire world was based on her
paramour, nearly twenty years her senior, whom she had no
present plans to marry and had not considered what would
happen to her and the children in Green if they separated.
Appellant filed objections to the magistrate's report.
The court adopted the magistrate's findings concerning
custody, but added several findings of its own. The court
found Appellant showed the guardian ad litem's report to
the older child. The court further found the parties talked
about each other so poorly in front of the children as to
cause the children stress. The court found the parties do not
communicate in a manner conducive to shared parenting. The
court further noted the daughter was confused by the
relationship between Appellant and her paramour, because at
the time Appellant was still married to Appellee. The court
further found this confusion was heightened by Appellant
sleeping in the same bed with her paramour when the children
were visiting. The court also found Appellant's health
problems require a "plethora" of doctor's
appointments which take up quite a bit of her time. Further,
the court concluded Appellant has told the children Appellee
is not truthful.
It is from the November 1, 2017 judgment naming Appellee the
residential parent Appellant prosecutes her appeal, assigning
I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO
ADOPT A SHARED PARENTING PLAN AND INSTEAD AWARDED SOLE