Ok ok, here's a simple question blank and to the point.....

[moburkes]

Well, I think that it is unwise of you to piss me off.

 

[pegmatite9999]

Actually, Stealth's statement WAS correct, if you understand what "first in line" means.

Tony Jacket, the biological father was never "first in line".

 

[pegmatite9999]

Well, I think that it is unwise of you to piss me off.

Really? Do you get pissed off every time you're wrong?

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."
~ Shakespeare

You are one pissed off messenger shooting fool!

 

[AHA]

What is the name of your state? OHIO

If two people have a child out of wedlock in the state of Ohio, the mother is automatically the custodial parent unless a court appoints otherwise. (per ORC)

Who gets the kid if the mother passes away? The bilogical father, or some joe schmoe off the street?

You have gotten the legal answers on 2 threads now, so it would be wise to close this one since it's going down in the sewer at warp speed. Thank you.

 

[pegmatite9999]

Originally Posted by cgcivy79
What is the name of your state? OHIO

"If two people have a child out of wedlock in the state of Ohio, the mother is automatically the custodial parent unless a court appoints otherwise. (per ORC)

Who gets the kid if the mother passes away? The bilogical father, or some joe schmoe off the street?"

Fathers in family court need to be careful. If this is something you are truly concerned about, ask for an order to specify what will happen in the event of the mother's death.
Don't ever assume anything, especially if you are a father in family court!

 

[moburkes]

The father is next in line. That hasn't changed. Period. If the judge chose to ignore the law, then the father can choose to fight it. Period.

 

[pegmatite9999]

The father is next in line. That hasn't changed. Period. If the judge chose to ignore the law, then the father can choose to fight it. Period.

It happens all the time (judges ignore the law)!!! Poster, get it in writing, even if it is seemingly obvious. Family court battles are a crap shoot. You are obviously concerned that "some shmoe might end up raising your child." Do everything you can to make sure there is less to fight about in the event that the mother does pass away.

 

[Ohiogal]

Hey pegmatite, try learning the law and speaking about Ohio law after you get your law degree and pass the bar to practice in Ohio:
In Ohio the other parent (NCP) gets custody however others can petition for visitation.
§ 3109.11. Companionship or visitation rights where parent is deceased.

If either the father or mother of an unmarried minor child is deceased, the court of common pleas of the county in which the minor child resides may grant the parents and other relatives of the deceased father or mother reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to the minor child during the child's minority if the parent or other relative files a complaint requesting reasonable companionship or visitation rights and if the court determines that the granting of the companionship or visitation rights is in the best interest of the minor child. In determining whether to grant any person reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to any child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors set forth in division (D) of section 3109.051 [3109.05.1] of the Revised Code. Divisions (C), (K), and (L) of section 3109.051 [3109.05.1] of the Revised Code apply to the determination of reasonable companionship or visitation rights under this section and to any order granting any such rights that is issued under this section.






The remarriage of the surviving parent of the child or the adoption of the child by the spouse of the surviving parent of the child does not affect the authority of the court under this section to grant reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to the child to a parent or other relative of the child's deceased father or mother.



If the court denies a request for reasonable companionship or visitation rights made pursuant to this section and the complainant files a written request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court shall state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Civil Rule 52.





Except as provided in division (E)(6) of section 3113.31 of the Revised Code, if the court, pursuant to this section, grants any person companionship or visitation rights with respect to any child, it shall not require the public children services agency to provide supervision of or other services related to that person's exercise of companionship or visitation rights with respect to the child. This section does not limit the power of a juvenile court pursuant to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code to issue orders with respect to children who are alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent children or to make dispositions of children who are adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent children or of a common pleas court to issue orders pursuant to section 3113.31 of the Revised Code.


HISTORY: 134 v H 163 (Eff 2-17-72); 143 v H 15 (Eff 5-31-90); 143 v S 3 (Eff 4-11-91); 146 v H 274 (Eff 8-8-96); 148 v S 180. Eff 3-22-2001.

 

[pegmatite9999]

Hey pegmatite, try learning the law and speaking about Ohio law after you get your law degree and pass the bar to practice in Ohio:
In Ohio the other parent (NCP) gets custody however others can petition for visitation.
§ 3109.11. Companionship or visitation rights where parent is deceased.

If either the father or mother of an unmarried minor child is deceased, the court of common pleas of the county in which the minor child resides may grant the parents and other relatives of the deceased father or mother reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to the minor child during the child's minority if the parent or other relative files a complaint requesting reasonable companionship or visitation rights and if the court determines that the granting of the companionship or visitation rights is in the best interest of the minor child. In determining whether to grant any person reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to any child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors set forth in division (D) of section 3109.051 [3109.05.1] of the Revised Code. Divisions (C), (K), and (L) of section 3109.051 [3109.05.1] of the Revised Code apply to the determination of reasonable companionship or visitation rights under this section and to any order granting any such rights that is issued under this section.






The remarriage of the surviving parent of the child or the adoption of the child by the spouse of the surviving parent of the child does not affect the authority of the court under this section to grant reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to the child to a parent or other relative of the child's deceased father or mother.



If the court denies a request for reasonable companionship or visitation rights made pursuant to this section and the complainant files a written request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court shall state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Civil Rule 52.





Except as provided in division (E)(6) of section 3113.31 of the Revised Code, if the court, pursuant to this section, grants any person companionship or visitation rights with respect to any child, it shall not require the public children services agency to provide supervision of or other services related to that person's exercise of companionship or visitation rights with respect to the child. This section does not limit the power of a juvenile court pursuant to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code to issue orders with respect to children who are alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent children or to make dispositions of children who are adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent children or of a common pleas court to issue orders pursuant to section 3113.31 of the Revised Code.


HISTORY: 134 v H 163 (Eff 2-17-72); 143 v H 15 (Eff 5-31-90); 143 v S 3 (Eff 4-11-91); 146 v H 274 (Eff 8-8-96); 148 v S 180. Eff 3-22-2001.

Hey poster, many people who share their experiences on this forum are not lawyers, nor are they required to be. There is no way it can hurt you to ask for this clarification in a court order if you are a fit parent. Ohio Gal, you don't get it. Prevention is the cure.

 

[moburkes]

Hey poster, many people who share their experiences on this forum are not lawyers, nor are they required to be. There is no way it can hurt you to ask for this clarification in a court order if you are a fit parent. Ohio Gal, you don't get it. Prevention is the cure.

You don't get it. You don't get that a ruling in a state other than OH does not mean a damn thing in the OH court system.

 

[pegmatite9999]

You don't get it. You don't get that a ruling in a state other than OH does not mean a damn thing in the OH court system.

You don't want to admit it, it's possible in ANY court system in this country. Family court judges have broad discretion. It makes no sense to risk such a huge thing, even if you believe it's a remote possiblity. I have testified in a Franklin County Court, and saw outrageous actions from an old out of touch judge. His finding was ultimately overturned, but the fight took SEVEN YEARS. Prevention is the cure. You people are just plain stubborn!

 

[moburkes]

It has NOTHING to do with being stubborn. This is a LEGAL advice website. Legally, the other parents has the first right. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. However, judges do have some discretion, while other judges abuse their position. This happens in life. If you had simply said, I saw this other case, in which such and such happened, therefore, you should blah, blah, blah. That would have been different. However, you seem to want to flaunt 1 example of something to *prove* that someone here gave bad advice.

Of course, stuff happens. Of course. We would all be idiots not t recognize that. However, the law states that you cannot will a child, since a child is not property. Anyone, however, can write anything that they want, in their will. I can put that the sky is purple in mine, if I'd like. So what.

 

[Gevalia]

To be fair, with reference to the example posed, it should be noted that the father of Christa Worthington's child (Ava) was a married man with whom she was having an affair and, to quote the Crime Library:

When Tony was informed about the pregnancy, he was deeply concerned that it would spell doom for his marriage. An article by Franci Richardson in the Boston Herald quoted Tony, who said, "I wasn't looking to end my marriage but I am human. It was her choice to have the baby." Consequently, he ended his relationship with Christa.

He eventually agreed to acknowledge the child and pay child support, but it's not like he had much of a choice there.

The father was first in line. For whatever reason, the judge ruled to uphold Christa's wishes. Perhaps he considered the fact that the father initially appeared to want no more of a relationship with Ava than was legally required, and the father's motive to "fight" for his daughter was suspect in light of the pending $10 million lawsuit, on Ava's behalf, against the murderer's employer.

 

[LdiJ]

You don't want to admit it, it's possible in ANY court system in this country. Family court judges have broad discretion. It makes no sense to risk such a huge thing, even if you believe it's a remote possiblity. I have testified in a Franklin County Court, and saw outrageous actions from an old out of touch judge. His finding was ultimately overturned, but the fight took SEVEN YEARS. Prevention is the cure. You people are just plain stubborn!

Look, of COURSE its possible that a judge could give custody to a relative over a parent. Those things DO happen...they are rare, but they happen. However, that does not change the fact that the other parent would be "first in line". First in line, in this scenario, would mean that IF the parent wants custody, the relative would have to prove that the parent was unfit for custody, or that some truly unusual circumstances would exist that made it vastly more appropriate for the child to be placed in the custody of the relative.

That again however, doesn't change the fact that the parent is first in line.

You are making a big stink because you don't understand what "first in line" means. However, barring parental unfitness or VERY unusual circumstances, the parent is going to get custody.

 

[ceara19]

As someone that HAS been there and done that, I can say with absolute certainty that children CANNOT be willed. Had I died before the ex's rights were terminated, my mother would NOT have inherited the children. She would have inherited a court order.