Dragon v. Dragon
2016 Ohio 7304
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Gerald G. Dragon was ordered to pay child support following a 1982 divorce; arrearages were later reduced to judgment (including a 2007 judgment).
- In late 2015 Dragon filed a motion under R.C. 3119.961 seeking: relief from the paternity determination, relief from child‑support obligations, and an order for genetic testing, claiming two of three children were not his.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding res judicata barred relief because Dragon failed to appeal the 1982 paternity/support orders and the 2007 judgment on arrearages.
- The Eighth District reversed, holding res judicata did not bar a first-time R.C. 3119.961 motion and that the trial court must consider Dragon’s motion under the statutory framework governing relief from paternity/support orders.
- The panel rejected appellee’s contentions that Civ.R. 60(B), Civ.R. 75(J), R.C. 3111.05 (statute of limitations for original paternity actions), or a pre‑existing requirement to have genetic test results in hand before filing barred the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dragon) | Defendant's Argument (CSEA/OCSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars a R.C. 3119.961 motion filed decades after the original paternity/support orders | Res judicata should not bar his first petition under R.C. 3119.961 seeking relief and testing | Res judicata precludes relief because he could have appealed the original 1982 and 2007 orders | Reversed trial court: res judicata does not categorically bar a first R.C. 3119.961 motion |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) governs relief from paternity/support | R.C. 3119.961 governs and Civ.R. 60(B) is inapplicable | The motion should fail under Civ.R. 60(B) standards | R.C. 3119.961 et seq. governs; Civ.R. 60(B) is inapplicable |
| Whether a petitioner must have genetic test results before filing a R.C. 3119.961 motion | Filing may occur without test results; test results are required before relief can be granted | Petitioner must obtain and present genetic tests before filing to invoke jurisdiction/relief | Filing without results is permitted; however, a court can grant relief only after compliant genetic results are received (statute does not impose a pre‑filing jurisdictional bar) |
| Whether the court can order genetic testing (and compel emancipated children) | Court should consider ordering testing and evaluate statutory standards (including willful noncompliance) | Court lacks authority to order testing here; cannot compel emancipated, nonparty children; statutory prerequisites not met | Court remanded to apply statutory standards; majority declines to decide whether testing can be compelled for emancipated nonparties (trial court to address on remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Doe v. Capper, 132 Ohio St.3d 365, 972 N.E.2d 553 (Ohio 2012) (discusses limits on domestic relations court jurisdiction over nonparties)
- Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 846 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 2006) (addresses joinder/necessary‑party and jurisdictional defects)