In re A.H.W.

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 2168

Syllabus

Application to establish parenting plan, continuance, failure to proffer testimony, reopening of hearing, allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, abuse of discretion. Father filed an application to establish a shared parenting plan. Prior to hearing, Mother moved for continuance because witnesses would not be available. Magistrate denied the motion and held a hearing as to the only issue contested, the parenting schedule. Magistrate issued a decision adopting Father's shared parenting plan that the juvenile court adopted over Mother's objections. Mother filed objections to the magistrate's decision. She argued that the magistrate should have granted her a continuance and asked the juvenile court to reopen the hearing and take new evidence in light of Father's post-hearing messages to her. She also argued that the magistrate erred in adopting Father's parenting schedule because it was not in the child's best interest because it deviated from the court's standard parenting time schedule and it gave parenting time to Father when he was at work. The juvenile court did not err in overruling Mother's objections. The decision to grant a continuance or reopen a hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Juvenile court found that Mother did not proffer the witness testimony or explain how the post-hearing messages would affect the outcome of the hearing as such, Mother did not demonstrate the juvenile court abused its discretion. Further, by failing to proffer testimony, Mother forfeited the right to contest the denial of motion to continue the hearing. The juvenile court's decision concerning the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Adoption of the Father's parenting schedule was not an abuse of discretion where the court considered the relevant factors to determine the best of the child.