Ohio Family Law caselaw....

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

We will see if this helps anyone. I read cases every week. I can post them. This is this week's cases thus far that deal with Family Law. Read them and use them as reference. DO NOT believe that just because you read a case, you know the law. You need to know the case in context. So far, this week's cases include:

McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2013-Ohio-4859
Portions of note:

We note that in Ohio, courts have held that preventing a party
from presenting evidence at a divorce trial because they failed to
file a formal answer constitutes an abuse of discretion. * * * In
the instant case, we believe that defendant has set forth facts
which could have had an impact on the trial court’s property
division if he had been provided with the opportunity to present
those facts at trial. Moreover, we find that the judgment
entered by the trial court was in substance a default judgment
which may not be properly entered in a divorce action. Civ.R.
75(G).
Therefore, in light of defendant’s apparent intent to
defend this action, we do not believe that his failure to file a
formal answer should have precluded him from testifying or
presenting evidence at his trial.

And:

It may be good case management for a domestic-relations court
to maintain a separate docket for noncontested divorces, and we
are aware that this is a venerable practice within some of the
counties in our jurisdiction. But the fact that a divorce litigant
has not filed an answer does not prevent the litigant from
contesting one or more issues in the divorce. In the occasional
case, this may mean that a case set for hearing on the
noncontested docket may have to be reset for the contested
docket because the nonanswering, and hitherto unassertive,
defendant shows up at the hearing intending to contest one or
more issues. In this case, though, the pretrial conference alerted
the trial court to the fact that this was a contested case, despite
the fact that [defendant] had not answered the complaint, so
there was an opportunity to reset the case on the contested
docket.

And:

[D]ue to the defendant’s failure to answer plaintiff’s complaint,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court granting a divorce to
plaintiff on the grounds of incompatibility. However, due to the
trial court’s failure to allow defendant to present evidence at
trial, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s judgment entry
pertaining to the division of property and child custody and
remand this case to that court to conduct a full evidentiary
hearing regarding the same. At the hearing, both parties shall
be given an opportunity to present evidence regarding the
division of their property and the custody of their minor [child].

Thus the holding:

For the reasons set forth above and having found error prejudicial to
the appellant, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Marion County, Family
Division is affirmed only as to the judgment granting the divorce. The portion of
the entry regarding all other issues is vacated and the matter is remanded for
further proceedings in accord with this opinion.

In re S.W.-S., 2013-Ohio-4823

Holding: The trial court properly determined that parents’ prior agreement with respect to visitation and child support, which was made out of court and was never filed with the court, did not constitute an actual or a “de facto” order of the court for purposes of allocating child custody. Thus, the court properly reviewed Father’s motion for custody under the standard to be used in an initial determination of that issue, rather than as a modification. Court did not give undue weight to any single factor, including Mother’s intent to move out of state, in naming Father the residential and custodial parent. Judgment affirmed.

Batcher v. Pierce, 2013-Ohio-4677
Look at paragraph 16 and paragraph 23 -- paragraph 23 spells out that termination of a shared parenting plan is based ONLY on the best interests of the child and a change in circumstance is not required:

(¶23} A court may terminate an SPP upon a determination that the SPP is not in the best interest of the children. Kannan at ¶ 9, quoting R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c). "A termination under this section does not require a showing of a change in circumstances or a showing that the advantages of the change outweigh the likely harm." Hamby v. Hamby, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23096, 2006-Ohio-6905, ¶ 6. It only requires a trial court to perform a best interest analysis under R.C. 3109.04(F). Sindelar v. Gall, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25022, 2010-Ohio-1960, ¶ 8-9. Accord Kannan at ¶ 9-16; Bentley v. Rojas, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA009776, 2010-Ohio-6243, ¶ 19.

 

[stealth2]

Can't hurt!

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

We will see if this helps anyone. I read cases every week. I can post them. This is this week's cases thus far that deal with Family Law. Read them and use them as reference. DO NOT believe that just because you read a case, you know the law. You need to know the case in context. So far, this week's cases include:

McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2013-Ohio-4859
Portions of note:

Looks like the trial courts attempt to railroad the defendent backfired "this time". I'm glad the defendent had the tenacity and money to appeal. Not all of them do.