The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled on August 6, 2026, to uphold a lower court's decision to reappoint a parenting coordinator in the divorce case of April Bott Moore and Robert Dean Moore. The ruling affects the couple's ongoing disputes regarding the care and custody of their child, highlighting the complexities of post-divorce parenting arrangements.
The case, Moore v. Moore (No. 25AP-329), began in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, where April and Robert Moore had been embroiled in a lengthy legal battle since their divorce proceedings started in 2016. The court's decision to maintain the parenting coordinator is significant as it aims to facilitate communication and resolution of disputes between the parents, which has been a challenge throughout their divorce.
Background
April Bott Moore and Robert Dean Moore were married in 2013 and welcomed their child in 2014. Their relationship deteriorated, leading to a divorce filing in January 2016. The couple agreed to a shared parenting plan, which the court approved in December 2016. This plan required the engagement of a qualified parenting coordinator to assist in resolving disputes.
Over the years, the couple has faced numerous disagreements regarding the parenting coordinator's role and decisions. After multiple appointments and reappointments of parenting coordinators, the situation escalated in March 2022 when Robert sought to remove the current coordinator, while April requested her reappointment. The trial court ultimately appointed a new coordinator in July 2022, but disputes continued, prompting Robert to file for reappointment again in July 2024.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Dingus, affirmed the lower court's decision to reappoint the parenting coordinator. The court found that April's concerns about the coordinator's performance were not substantiated. It stated, "April had not substantiated her claim that the parenting coordinator and the magistrate had engaged in a substantive ex parte conversation." The court emphasized the importance of the coordinator's historical knowledge of the case in making its decision.
The court also addressed April's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the reappointment after the final divorce decree was issued. It clarified that parenting coordination is an ancillary proceeding that aids in implementing parental rights and responsibilities, thus allowing the trial court to retain jurisdiction over such matters even after a final order.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the Moore family and potentially for other families navigating similar disputes. By affirming the reappointment of the parenting coordinator, the court aims to ensure continued support for the couple in managing their shared parenting responsibilities. This decision underscores the importance of having a neutral third party to facilitate communication and resolve conflicts in high-conflict custody situations.
The ruling also sets a precedent regarding the jurisdiction of trial courts in parenting coordination matters, clarifying that such decisions can be made even after a final divorce decree. This could influence future cases where parents seek modification or reappointment of parenting coordinators post-divorce.
What's Next
April Moore has the option to appeal the decision, although it is unclear if she will pursue further legal action. The case highlights the ongoing challenges that many divorced parents face regarding custody and parenting coordination, and it remains to be seen how this ruling will affect the Moore family's future interactions.