2020 Ohio 3388
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Child A.G.B. born in Virginia in 2012; parents married and living in Virginia.
- Mother and child moved to Dayton, Ohio in May 2018 to live with maternal grandmother; Father remained in Virginia.
- Mother died on August 4, 2019; Father traveled to Dayton, picked up the child on August 8 and returned to Virginia.
- Grandmother filed an Ohio custody complaint on August 12, 2019; a magistrate initially granted interim custody but that order was later set aside after in‑camera interview and the juvenile court restored custody to Father.
- Father filed for custody in Virginia on August 15; the Virginia court held hearings (with a guardian ad litem) and awarded Father sole custody on October 28, 2019.
- Father moved to dismiss the Ohio action; on December 16 the Ohio juvenile court dismissed Grandmother’s complaint, concluding it lacked UCCJEA home‑state jurisdiction and, alternatively, declining to exercise jurisdiction in favor of the Virginia court.
Issues
| Issue | Grandmother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio had "home‑state" jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Ohio was the child’s home state because Mother and child had lived in Ohio since May 2018 (over six months) | After Mother’s death the child was absent from Ohio and Father (the remaining parent) lived in Virginia, so Ohio lacked home‑state jurisdiction | No home‑state jurisdiction: when Mother died the child ceased to live in Ohio with a parent, ending the home‑state period; extended home‑state jurisdiction requires a parent/person acting as parent to continue to reside in the state |
| Whether Ohio should decline to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum | Ohio should proceed with Grandmother’s custody claim | Virginia was a more appropriate forum (prior proceedings, evidence and the child in Virginia) | Court did not abuse discretion in declining jurisdiction: Virginia had already held hearings, appointed GAL, and was better situated under the R.C. 3127.21(B) convenience factors |
| Whether Ohio had significant‑connection jurisdiction | (implicit) Ohio had sufficient contacts to hear the case because child lived there prior to death | Even if significant‑connection existed, comity and convenience favored Virginia | Even assuming significant‑connection jurisdiction, the court reasonably declined to exercise jurisdiction in favor of Virginia |
| Pleading sufficiency re: Father’s unsuitability for custody | (Grandmother did not allege Father was unsuitable) | Father argued dismissal appropriate; court noted possible pleading defect | Court did not rely on this ground but noted complaint likely failed to allege Father’s unsuitability and could have been dismissed on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241 (establishes UCCJEA priority to home state and explains "home state" concept)
- State ex rel. Morenz v. Kerr, 104 Ohio St.3d 148 (discusses purpose of the UCCJEA to avoid interstate jurisdictional competition)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (describes standards for denying a parent custody—unsuitability required)
- In re M.T., 178 Ohio App.3d 546 (treatment of trial court discretion to decline jurisdiction under UCCJEA)