Haynes v. Haynes
2017 Ohio 2718
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents (Haynes) divorced in 2012 with a shared parenting plan naming both as residential parents/legal custodians of twin sons (age 9).
- August 2015: magistrate sua sponte suspended Father's parenting time after a police investigation; juvenile complaint filed alleging abuse/dependency and a GAL appointed.
- October 2015: GAL moved the domestic relations court to certify all parenting issues to juvenile court under R.C. 3109.06; magistrate denied as premature.
- December 2015: juvenile court adjudicated the twins abused/dependent; GAL renewed certification motion in January 2016.
- May–June 2016: magistrate granted certification to juvenile court; juvenile court provided written consent; domestic relations court overruled Father’s objections and certified the matters to juvenile court.
- Father appealed, arguing certification under R.C. 3109.06 required the domestic relations court to make the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) best-interest finding that neither parent should have custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/GAL) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether domestic relations court properly certified parenting issues to juvenile court under R.C. 3109.06 | Certification is proper where juvenile court consented to the transfer under R.C. 3109.06(1) | Certification also requires the transferring court to make the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) best-interest finding that neither parent be residential parent/custodian | Court held certification 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 that dispositions shall be made “in accordance with R.C. 3109.04” imports the R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) certification requirement into R.C. 3109.06 | That incorporation applies only to how custody decisions are made after certification | That incorporation requires the 3109.04(D)(2) best-interest finding before certification under 3109.06 | Court held the reference to R.C. 3109.04 in R.C. 3109.06 governs how custody is decided after transfer, not the procedures for transfer; it does not import the 3109.04(D)(2) finding into the R.C. 3109.06 consent-route for certification |
| Whether Poling or other precedent requires the transferring court to make the 3109.04(D)(2) finding before juvenile jurisdiction attaches | Precedent interpreting R.C. 2151.23(F)(1) requires juvenile courts to follow R.C. 3109.04 when exercising custody jurisdiction | Same precedent shows transferring-court duties include the best-interest finding before transfer | Court distinguished Poling/Valentine: those cases address juvenile-court obligations once it has jurisdiction or different transfer statutes; they do not require a 3109.04(D)(2) finding where certification occurs via juvenile court consent under R.C. 3109.06 |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. Market Exchange Bank Co., 81 Ohio St. 348 (1910) (every word of a statute should be given effect)
- Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood Assocs., 138 Ohio App.3d 353 (2d Dist. 2000) (statutory construction presumption that every word has meaning)
- In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (1992) (juvenile court must exercise custody jurisdiction in accordance with R.C. 3109.04)
- In re Whaley, 86 Ohio App.3d 304 (4th Dist. 1993) (distinguishing certification routes under 3109.06)
- Thompson v. Valentine, 189 Ohio App.3d 661 (12th Dist. 2010) (discussing multiple statutory mechanisms for juvenile court to obtain custody jurisdiction)