COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70914 IN RE: ERIN PETRELLA : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND : OPINION : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : MAY 8, 1997 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Juvenile Court Division of Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 9602828 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For appellant: For appellee: FRED P. LENHARDT, ESQ. PAMELA J. MACADAMS, ESQ. 1750 Standard Building Morganstern, Macadams & Devito 1370 Ontario Street 400 Burgess Bldg. Cleveland, OH 44113 1406 West 6th Street Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, J. This appeal arises from a complaint for custody and allocation of parental rights and responsibilities filed by the father of Erin Petrella, petitioner-appellant Anthony Petrella ("father"). The father appeals the trial court's order naming of respondent- appellee Diane McLaughlin ("mother") the residential parent. Erin Petrella was born out of wedlock to her mother and father on August 21, 1995. After Erin's birth, the mother and father lived together for approximately three weeks. Because of the violent and unstable nature of their relationship the mother moved, without Erin, to her mother's house on September 6, 1995. The next day, the father brought Erin over to the see the mother. At this time, the mother refused to return Erin to the father. Since then, Erin has remained in the custody of her mother. The father attempted many times to obtain visitation rights but the mother would only allow supervised visitation because of the father's alleged violent tendencies. On November 30, 1995, the couple had a mediation meeting where an agreement was reached giving each party equal parenting time. Within the next few months both the mother and father failed to adhere to the mediation agreement. This resulted in the father filing the instant complaint. At trial, both mother and father testified regarding their relationships with Erin and their relationship with each other. The couple's relationship was marred by threats, violence, and - 3 - arguments. The mother and Erin lived in a three bedroom apartment with four other family members while the father lived alone. Both mother and father worked. However, the father testified he hit the mother once, threatened the mother, and punched the mother's boyfriend. Based on the testimony admitted at trial the trial court named the mother the "residential parent." It is from this order which the father now appeals. The father's first assignment of error states as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD TO APPELLEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY FINDINGS AS TO THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 3109.04 (F). The father argues the record lacks substantial and credible evidence upon which the court based its decision to name the mother the residential parent. He also claims the trial court erred by not applying the statutory best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) to the evidence in the case. The mother maintains a trial court has broad discretion in deciding custody matters and in the present case the trial court did not abuse its discretion because there was substantial and credible evidence to support the trial court's decision. "When making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children under this section in an original proceeding ***, the court shall take into account that which would be in the best interest of the children." R.C. - 4 - 3109.04(B)(1). The courts have been directed by the General Assembly to consider all relevant factors in determining the best interests of a child. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1); Bechtol v. Bechtol (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 21, 22. It is well settled that a trial court is given broad discretion in its determination of parental custody rights. A trial court must have discretion to do what is equitable based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144. A trial court's custody determination will therefore not be disturbed unless it involves an abuse of discre- tion. Bechtol, at 23. A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion in a custody award unless its decision involves more than an error of judgment and can be characterized as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Booth, at 144. The trial court heard extensive testimony from both parents regarding the parent's home environment and how each parent interacts with Erin. Six other witnesses testified about the mother and father's violent and unstable relationship. In its journal entry, the trial court referred to the father's assaulting of the mother's "gentleman friend" and also stated the relationship was marred by threats and violence. In addition, the father testified he hit the mother on one occasion. After a thorough review of the record and testimony heard at trial, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of Erin to the mother. - 5 - The father also contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to specifically enumerate the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04. The trial court stated "[c]onsidering the factors set forth in section 3109.04 of the revised code, the court finds that it is in the best interest of Erin to remain in the custody of her mother." The trial court did consider the statutory factors but failed to address each factor individually. The father cites no authority to support his argument that the trial court must address each factor individually. In fact the case law is to the contrary. In Janson v. Janson (November 1, 1995), Hamilton App. No. C-940913, unreported and in Duncan v. Raker (Oct. 23, 1981), Lucas App. No. L-81-121, unreported, both districts held there is no requirement that a trial court separately address and list each factor contained in R.C. 3109.04 when determining custody. Based on the foregoing, the father's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Juvenile Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. KARPINSKI, J. MAHONEY, J.,* CONCUR *SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: JOSEPH E. MAHONEY, RETIRED JUDGE OF COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App. R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .