Historically, courts have looked to the prior decree which granted the then existing award of "custody". See Bachtel v. Bachtel (1954), 97 Ohio App. 52 (disapproved on other grounds, Volz v. Volz (1957) 167 Ohio St. 141)1; White v. White (1945), 77 Ohio App. 447, Rauth v. Rauth (1943), 73 Ohio App. 564. In this case, only the February 11, 1997, Judgment dealt directly with the naming of a residential parent.
In arriving at a custody decision, the trial court may, within its sound discretion, limit the time period in which a parent's habits will be investigated to a reasonable period immediately preceding the hearing. Rauth v. Rauth (1943), 73 Ohio App. 564; Schwalenberg v. Schwalenberg (1940), 65 Ohio App. 217. The second ruling challenged by the appellant was the Referee's refusal to permit the presence of anyone else, not even the attorney or the court reporter, while he conferred with the minor children, Michael and Dennis. The Referee stated that this ruling was based on ". . . a policy of my own. . . ."
The proper forum in which to raise the question respecting a modification of the decree is the Common Pleas Court of Warren County, the court which granted the decree. Corbett v. Corbett, supra; In re Crist, 89 Ohio St. 33, 105 N.E. 71; Rogers v. Rogers, 51 Ohio St. 1, 4, 36 N.E. 310; Collins v. Collins, 79 Ohio App. 329, 333, 73 N.E.2d 814; Rauth v. Rauth, 73 Ohio App. 564, 569, 57 N.E.2d 266; 14 Ohio Jurisprudence, 544, Section 141. The Common Pleas Court of Preble County was without jurisdiction to make an order. This branch of the motion should have been overruled.
As above indicated, objections were sustained to the introduction of any testimony concerning the conduct of the plaintiff prior to October 7, 1952. We agree with the salutary rule announced in Rauth v. Rauth, 73 Ohio App. 564, 57 N.E.2d 266, and White v. White, 77 Ohio App. 447, 66 N.E.2d 159, that in a hearing on a motion to modify an order awarding custody of a child, evidence tending to show unfitness of the custodian, at or before the time such award was made, is not admissible and that only evidence of unfitness of the custodian since the time of the award may be introduced. The best interests of the children as well as the parents require that the matter of custody of minor children should not be reopened and the controversy renewed unless there has occurred a substantial change in circumstances since the original award.
This motion was overruled and exceptions noted. The most recent pronouncement on this question is found in the case of Rauth v. Rauth, 73 Ohio App. 564, 57 N.E.2d 266. There the court said in paragraph three of the syllabus: "In a hearing on a motion to modify an order awarding custody of a child, evidence tending to show the unfitness of the custodian of the child, at or before the time such award was made, is not admissible. Evidence only of the unfitness of the custodian since the time of the award may be so introduced."