"This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant’s motion to modify the parties’ Shared Parenting Plan, filed on April 20, 2004. Plaintiff orally moved to terminate the Shared Plan during the hearing held on October 18, 2004. Both parties attended the hearing and were represented by counsel: Dominic Mastruserio represented the Plaintiff and Richard Ducote and Richard Martin appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
From the evidence and testimony presented in court, it is in the children’s best interest to designate the Plaintiff as the residential parent and to TERMINATE the Shared Parenting Plan entered into on September 25, 2000.
The Plaintiff is most likely to facilitate visitation; the Plaintiff can provide stability and home the children need for their personal and social growth. Further the court is concerned over the oldest child’s emotional distress at being continuously involved in his parent’s inability to resolve their conflicts. The ongoing conflict makes Shared Parenting impossible to succeed. It is also in their best interest to begin to moving toward normal development. The court finds that any harm that may result from the termination of the Shared Parenting Plan is outweighed by the advantages the children will gain.
For a Shared Parenting plan to succeed and be in the best interest of the children, the parents must be able to cooperate and make joint decisions. No evidence was presented to prove the parties are or have ever been able to achieve that level of cooperation. Neither parent has shown the ability to encourage a loving relationship between the children and the other parent. Finally, the court must consider the geographic distance the Defendant’s profession puts between her and the children while she works. There were no recommendations from a GAL or a psychological evaluation.
The children are integrated into the Plaintiff’s home and have the opportunity to continually interact with their siblings. The Plaintiff is the parent more likely to facilitate parenting time; the Defendant continues to assert the Plaintiff sexually abuses the children even though the abuse is unsubstantiated. The children are adjusted to their school and community. After considering the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04 (F) (1) & (2) the Court determines the Plaintiff is the parent to be designated the residential parent.
It is also in the children’s best interest to AWARD the Plaintiff the children’s federal and state exemption. The current child support will remain undisturbed until further order of the Court.
Pursuant to R.C.3109.051 (A) the Court finds it is in the best interest of the children to AWARD the Defendant parenting time. The Defendant is AWARDED frequent and continuing contact with the children and no less parenting than listed in the following specific schedule:
Midweek Parenting Time: Wednesday each week for 3 hours. …
Weekend Parenting Time: Alternating weekends …
Birthdays: 3 hours parenting time on the child’s birthday. …
Holidays: The non-residential parent …"
In the Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux Decision, they are asked to reconsider before we take Hamilton County to the Ohio Supreme Court, and if necessary, the United States Supreme Court. Here is the mother's motion to the Appeals Court, followed by the Appeals Court Decision (which they posted on the internet - see, we're not the only ones) and finally, Judge Judson Shattuck's Skyline Chili Decision.
This is America. If it's true, you can say or publish it.