appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, Case No. 2012DR00311
Plaintiff-Appellant DOUGLAS BOND.
Defendant-Appellee GREGORY RUFO.
W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A.
Appellant appeals the September 25, 2018 judgment entry of
the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations
& Procedural History
Appellant Gary Premier ("Father") filed a complaint
for divorce against appellee Nicole Premier
("Mother") on March 13, 2012. The trial court
issued a judgment entry and decree of divorce on December 3,
2012. The parties agreed that Mother would be the custodial
parent of the parties' two children, A.P., born October
20, 1998 and K.P., born August 23, 2004. Father had parenting
time with the children weekly to accommodate his work
schedule. The trial court also ordered the children to
In May of 2014, Father filed a motion for reallocation of
parental rights and responsibilities alleging that there was
a change of circumstances because Mother continuously
encumbered his ability to maintain his relationship with his
children. In July of 2014, Father filed an amended motion for
reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Father
alleged that: Mother moved the children out of the marital
residence at the last minute; the children were homeless;
Mother had dated several different men; Mother was banned
from the counselor's office due to her behavior; and
Mother allowed the children not to attend school, affecting
their grades. The magistrate found no change of circumstances
pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). Father filed objections to
the magistrate's decision. The trial court overruled
Father's objections, adopted, and approved the
magistrate's decision. Father appealed to this Court,
arguing the trial court erred in finding there was no change
of circumstances. In Premier v. Premier,
5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00030, 2016-Ohio-673, we overruled
appellant's assignments of error and found the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in finding no change in
A.P. turned eighteen on October 20, 2016 and graduated from
high school in May of 2017.
On February 6, 2018, Father filed a motion for reallocation
of parental rights and responsibilities with regards to K.P.
and alleged that Mother moved from K.P.'s school district
and lives a nomadic lifestyle. Mother filed a memorandum in
opposition and for sanctions on February 21, 2018. On March
20, 2018, Melissa Pitinii ("Pitinii") was
re-appointed as guardian ad litem for K.P.
The trial court conducted a hearing on Father's motion on
August 20, 2018. Pitinii testified Exhibit 1 is her report
and recommendation that was filed on August 13, 2018. In her
report, Pitinii states it is in K.P.'s best interest for
Mother to remain the residential parent and legal custodian
of K.P., but with modification of Father's parenting time
as follows: allow Father to pick up K.P. Monday evening at
8:00 p.m. for the start of his parenting time; Father's
one week-end per month should begin Friday at 6:00 p.m.; and
Father should also have the fourth weekend in the month from
Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. when there are
five full week-ends in a month. Pitinii noted that as of June
of 2018, Mother lives in a home in Plain Township.
Pitinii testified Mother lived with her husband Brian Horning
("Horning") in Canton South in April of 2018, while
K.P. went to Oakwood Middle School in Plain Township. Pitinii
contacted the school, who told her Mother recently contacted
the school to tell them they were living outside of the
district but that they were moving back to the district
shortly. Pitinii believes Mother has help transporting K.P.
to school from K.P.'s grandmother and maternal aunt.
Pitinii does not believe it is concerning for K.P. to ride
the bus to and from her grandmother's house.
Father and his wife, Gina Premier, showed Pitinii a video
showing K.P., who was thirteen years old at the time, driving
on a fairly busy road with Mother in the passenger seat and
one of K.P.'s friends in the back seat videotaping K.P.
driving. Pitinii does not find it appropriate for a parent to
allow a thirteen year old to drive a vehicle on a busy
Pitinii recommends slight modifications to the parenting
schedule because Father no longer works midnights and now
works the day shift. Pitinii testified Mother and Father are
incapable of shared parenting because they cannot share and
they barely communicate. While Pitinii believes Mother has
made some poor decisions, Pitinii does not think they rise to
the level of switching custody.
As to K.P. moving out of the school district, Pitinii
testified it did not impact K.P. academically, as her grades
are fabulous and she is very good student. When Mother was
using grandmother's address for the school, Mother and
K.P. were spending some nights at the grandmother's house
and some nights at Horning's house. Pitinii stated while
this was a little hectic, K.P. did not seem to have a problem
with it and it certainly did not impact her grades. Pitinii
does not think Mother was honest with her about when Mother
notified the school about the living situation. While Father
expressed his concern to Pitinii about K.P. living out of a
bag and not having a spot to call her own, Pitinii stated
K.P. was fine with it and it did not bother her. Pitinii
testified K.P. doesn't want to upset either one of her
parents. Pitinii stated while K.P. is old enough to
understand about the court proceedings, Pitinii does not
think K.P. needs to read the pleadings.
Pitinii testified she applied the factors in R.C. 3109.04 as
part of her analysis and she recommends Mother remain the
residential parent, in spite of the concerns raised by
Father. Pitinii stated it has never been an issue for Mother
to get K.P. to school on time or any other transportation
issues. K.P. told Pitinii the driving happened one time and
did not happen again. Pitinii testified when the parents are
court-involved, it is very stressful for K.P. and K.P. would
really just like her parents to quit filing motions. ...