Haynes v. Haynes
2017 Ohio 2718
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents (Haynes) divorced 2012; shared parenting plan named both as residential parents/legal custodians of twin sons.
- Police investigation and juvenile complaint (Aug 2015) alleged abuse; domestic relations magistrate suspended Father's parenting time; juvenile court adjudicated the twins abused and dependent (Dec 2015) and appointed a GAL.
- GAL moved in domestic relations court to certify all parenting issues to juvenile court under R.C. 3109.06; magistrate initially denied as premature, then granted after juvenile adjudication and juvenile court consent.
- Father objected, arguing certification was improper because the domestic relations court failed to make a statutory best‑interest finding under R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) before transfer; the domestic relations court overruled objections after obtaining written juvenile‑court consent.
- The domestic relations court certified the case to juvenile court pursuant to the consent provision of R.C. 3109.06; Father appealed claiming the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction absent the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certification to juvenile court under R.C. 3109.06 required the domestic relations court to first make a R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) best‑interest finding | Mother/GAL: certification proper where juvenile court consented and magistrate recommended transfer | Father: R.C. 3109.06 incorporates R.C. 3109.04, so domestic relations court had to find it was in the child’s best interest that neither parent be custodian before transfer | Transfer under the first paragraph of R.C. 3109.06 is proper with juvenile‑court consent; no R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) finding required |
| Whether the phrase in R.C. 3109.06 requiring dispositions be made “in accordance with R.C. 3109.04” mandates R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) be met before certification | GAL: that phrase governs how juvenile court decides custody after transfer, not certification prerequisites | Father: phrase imports the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) best‑interest requirement into the certification process | The phrase applies to how custody dispositions are made after certification; it does not alter the separate certification methods in R.C. 3109.06 |
| Whether interpreting R.C. 3109.06 to require the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) finding would render parts of the statute meaningless | GAL/Domestic relations court: statutes create distinct, complementary certification methods; requiring the finding would nullify the consent route | Father: statutory language requires uniform best‑interest consideration | Court: rejecting Father’s view because it would render the consent route redundant; statutes must be read to give effect to all parts |
| Whether juvenile court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23(F)(1) absent the best‑interest finding | GAL: juvenile court consent vests exclusive jurisdiction under R.C. 3109.06 | Father: R.C. 2151.23(F)(1) requires R.C. 3109.04 conformity, so absence of the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) finding defeats jurisdiction | Court: juvenile court jurisdiction was proper after certification with juvenile consent; R.C. 2151.23(F)(1) governs how juvenile court exercises custody jurisdiction, not certification prerequisites |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. Market Exchange Bank Co., 81 Ohio St. 348 (1910) (every word in a statute is presumed to have effect)
- Shump v. First Continental–Robinwood Assocs., 138 Ohio App.3d 353 (2d Dist. 2000) (statutory language should be given effect when possible)
- In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (1992) (juvenile court exercising custody jurisdiction must do so in accordance with R.C. 3109.04)
- In re Whaley, 86 Ohio App.3d 304 (4th Dist. 1993) (distinguishing certification paths under R.C. 3109.06)
- Valentine (Thompson v. Valentine), 189 Ohio App.3d 661 (12th Dist. 2010) (R.C. 3109.06 provides two separate certification methods: consent of juvenile court or finding of parental unsuitability)