Ohio

Statutory framework; factor structure: 10 + 5.

Authority

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04(F)(1)–(2)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

10 listed factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1); 5 additional shared-parenting factors under (F)(2), which also incorporates R.C. 3119.23; both lists are nonexclusive

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

None

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

§ 3105.01(K) "Incompatibility, unless denied by either party", § 3105.01(J) living apart one year

Authority

Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3105.01, .17, .64. Ohio Civ. R. 75(K).

Grounds without a misconduct showing

§ 3105.01(K) "Incompatibility, unless denied by either party", § 3105.01(J) living apart one year

Other grounds and proof conditions

Bigamy, willful absence one year, adultery, extreme cruelty, fraudulent contract, gross neglect of duty, habitual drunkenness, imprisonment of the adverse party in a state or federal correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint, and an out-of-state divorce binding only one spouse (9).

Separation

one year "without interruption," "lived separate and apart without cohabitation," (J), one roof not addressed

Timing

Divorce or legal separation: Civ. R. 75(K) ordinarily requires 42 days after service or 28 days after the last publication. A counterclaim generally requires 28 days after service unless waived by the plaintiff. Dissolution has a separate 30- to 90-day hearing window under § 3105.64.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, legal separation, § 3105.17

Compare divorce grounds nationally

General best-interest factors. Ordinary modification. Notice required; no fixed day count.

Authority

R.C. 3109.051(G)

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

burden on the party seeking modification (no relocation-specific allocation)

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

not addressed in R.C. 3109.051(G)

What the court weighs

No relocation-specific standard. Under (G)(1) the court revises only the parenting-time schedule, on best interest under the R.C. 3109.051(D) factors. No change in circumstances is needed for that (Braatz). A trial court may not use the (D) factors to decide whether to permit or bar the move itself (Hezebicks 2026). Reallocating custody, including changing the residential-parent designation under a shared-parenting decree, needs a change in circumstances plus best interest under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) (Fisher v. Hasenjager 2007).

Who carries the burden

Not allocated for relocation. The residential parent needs no court permission to move unless the decree restricts moving. A parent seeking to reallocate custody must show a change in circumstances and that the change serves the child's best interest.

Notice and safety exceptions

The residential parent must file notice of an intended move from the residence specified in the parenting-time order with the issuing court under R.C. 3109.051(G). The court generally sends the other parent a copy, subject to the domestic-violence and abuse exceptions in (G)(2)–(4). The statute sets no number of days. Local rules and the custody order require a separate check.

Which moves trigger the rule

Any move to a residence other than the one specified in the order. The statute has no mileage or state-line threshold.

Objections and the effect of silence

No objection deadline. On receipt of the notice the court, on its own motion or the other parent's motion, 'may' schedule a hearing on whether to revise the parenting time schedule in the child's best interest. Hezebicks holds that R.C. 3109.051(G)(1) gives no authority to deny relocation; L.G. describes that conclusion as one courts have reached while addressing a pending reallocation motion. Where the decree expressly or impliedly restricts moving from the area, Hezebicks ¶ 34 quotes Salisbury for the rule that moving the child out of state requires a best-interest finding. Separately, Valentine ¶ 27, citing Acus ¶ 14, states that absent a prior agreement or court order the court may revise parenting time but cannot prohibit the residential parent from relocating with the children. The other parent may also move to reallocate custody.

The modification threshold

Fact-dependent at the appellate level. Zinnecker held that a move which directly and demonstrably affects the children, there the loss of close extended-family ties in Ohio, is a change of circumstances, while a move with no direct impact is inconsequential. Valentine affirmed a finding of no change where the other parent's time was not reduced and no extended family testified. L.G. n.3 describes cases that split on the facts: Zinnecker v. Zinnecker, 133 Ohio App.3d 378 (12th Dist. 1999) (relocation a substantial change on those facts) and Valentine v. Valentine, 2012-Ohio-426 (12th Dist.) (relocation alone not a change). For parenting time, no change of circumstances is required (Braatz). No Ohio Supreme Court decision on relocation as a change in circumstances found.

Other qualifications

The notice goes to the court, which forwards it to the other parent, and courts of appeals read the statute as giving the court no power to bar the move unless the decree itself restricts moving. The statute has no day count or mileage trigger.

Burden summary

Ordinary modification

Notice summary

Notice required; no fixed day count

Trigger summary

Any move

Compare parental relocation nationally