In re D.P.J.
2013 Ohio 4469
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Latisha Price, the biological mother, appeals a Civ.R. 60(B) dismissal of relief from a custody order against paternal grandparents Justice, who had custody since 2011.
- On July 27–28, 2011, appellees sought and obtained custody of D.P.J. and P.R.J. via an agreed judgment entry; Price signified consent to custody.
- Price later moved to modify custody on October 6, 2011, accompanied by an RC 3127.23(A) custody affidavit, which the court dismissed at her request.
- Price filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion on July 26, 2012 seeking relief from the 2011 custody order, asserting she was depressed and medicated when signing.
- At December 20, 2012, appellees urged dismissal for lack of an RC 3127.23(A) affidavit with the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, arguing it invoked a custody proceeding.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss on January 18, 2013; the appellate court reversed and remanded after analyzing jurisdictional standards and Goeller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RC 3127.23(A) applies to Civ.R. 60(B) custody relief | Price argues 60(B) relief is not a custody filing and does not trigger the affidavit requirement. | Justice argues the affidavit is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for any custody proceeding. | Affirmative Goeller: lack of affidavit does not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction; remand for cure. |
| Whether the 60(B) motion is the 'first pleading' in a custody proceeding | Price contends 60(B) is not the first pleading; initial custody petition was the first pleading. | Justice contends the first pleading is the initial custody petition; 60(B) is a subsequent filing. | Knight framework applies: 60(B) is not the first pleading; remand. |
| Whether the trial court should have allowed curing of the missing custody affidavit | Price asserts the court should permit cure rather than dismissal. | Justice argues dismissal was appropriate given the missing affidavit. | Court should have allowed cure; reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with Goeller. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasqualone v. Pasqualone, 63 Ohio St.2d 96 (Ohio 1980) (custody affidavit mandatory at outset; informs court of pending proceedings)
- Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427 (2004) (affidavit requirement relaxed for amended or later filings; lack does not void subject-matter jurisdiction)