## Facts

- Amy S. Huelskamp and Timothy A. Huelskamp married and had two children.
- For most of the children’s lives, Amy served as the children’s primary caretaker.
- The parties’ relationship was highly unstable, and they argued frequently in front of the children.
- Amy filed for divorce in the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
- Early in the case, both parties submitted shared-parenting plans, and the guardian ad litem initially recommended shared parenting, but suggested that exchanges occur in public places due to the parents’ conflict.
- By the time of trial, Amy sought sole custody rather than shared parenting.
- After hearing the evidence, the trial court concluded that cooperation under any shared-parenting plan was not feasible and that shared parenting was not in the children’s best interests.
- The trial court designated Amy as the residential parent and legal custodian and granted Timothy parenting time subject to conditions aimed at reducing conflict during exchanges.
- Timothy appealed the custody and parenting-time rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying shared parenting and naming Amy the residential parent and legal custodian.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting the terms and conditions of Timothy’s parenting time, including exchange-related restrictions designed to limit parental conflict.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held the record supported the finding that the parties’ level of conflict made meaningful cooperation unlikely, so a shared-parenting order was not in the children’s best interests.
- The court also upheld the parenting-time structure and exchange-related conditions as within the trial court’s discretion and consistent with the children’s welfare.

## Legal Principles

- Child-custody and parenting-time determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellate courts give substantial deference to the trial court, which directly observes the witnesses and evaluates credibility.
- A court may order shared parenting only if it is in the child’s best interests and the parents can realistically cooperate in making decisions affecting the child.
- The trial court must evaluate the statutory best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.04, including the child’s relationships, adjustment to home and school, the parents’ ability to facilitate the other parent’s relationship, and the practical ability of the parents to communicate and cooperate.
- A guardian ad litem’s recommendation is a factor the court may consider, but it does not control the outcome; the trial court remains responsible for the final best-interest determination.
- Trial courts have broad authority to set parenting-time schedules and conditions tailored to the child’s welfare; restrictions such as public exchanges may be appropriate when the record shows a risk of hostile interactions harming the children.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the divorce court’s custody and parenting-time orders, concluding that the evidence supported the finding that shared parenting was not workable given the parents’ conflict, that Amy’s designation as residential parent and legal custodian served the children’s best interests, and that the visitation conditions (including measures to manage exchanges) were reasonable exercises of the trial court’s discretion.


Huelskamp v. Huelskamp, 925 N.E.2d 167 (2009)