Ohio appeals court distinguishes relocation notice from parenting-time revision

An Ohio appeals court reversed an order requiring a residential parent to return the children to Ohio, holding that the trial court had misapplied the relocation-notice and parenting-time provisions. In Hezebicks v. Hezebicks, the Eleventh District remanded for further proceedings concerning the other parent’s parenting-time schedule.

The final divorce decree designated the mother residential parent and included a parenting-time schedule for the father. An earlier temporary order had restricted relocation without consent or court order, but the appellate court concluded that restriction merged into the final decree, which did not refer to it or otherwise preclude relocation. The decree included a standard relocation notice.

The trial court considered the statutory parenting-time factors to decide whether to permit the move. The appellate court held that, under Revised Code section 3109.051(G)(1), the question was whether the children’s best interests warranted a revised parenting-time schedule. It said the factors in section 3109.051(D) were to be considered for establishing that schedule, not for deciding whether to allow the move under that provision.

The opinion distinguished cases involving an express or implied restriction on relocation in a decree. Its result depends on the decree and procedural history before the court; it does not decide that all relocation restrictions are invalid. The court reversed and remanded, rather than deciding the revised schedule itself.