In re G.R.-Z., 2017 Ohio 8393

Mother (R.K.) and Domestic Partner (S.Z.) were long-term partners who never married; they had twins conceived via sperm donor J.A., who relinquished parental rights by agreement.
The partners separated in 2014; Domestic Partner moved out but later entered a June 2015 written agreement giving her visitation and a financial contribution obligation; the agreement repeatedly labeled Mother as “custodial parent” and Domestic Partner as “non-custodial parent.”
Domestic Partner filed a juvenile-court motion (Oct. 2015) seeking legal custody; she received supervised then unsupervised visitation pending the matter.
Mother moved to dismiss; the juvenile court denied dismissal, held a hearing, and concluded Mother had contractually permanently relinquished some custody to Domestic Partner, declined to award shared custody, and found it lacked jurisdiction to award visitation.
Both parties appealed. The Ninth District reversed, holding the written agreement did not manifest an intent to create a shared-custody contract and the parol evidence rule barred using conduct or oral statements to contradict the written terms.
The court noted concern about absence of a guardian ad litem where best-interest determinations hinge on implementing shared-custody agreements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother permanently relinquished custodial rights via the June 2015 agreement	Domestic Partner: the agreement (and/or conduct) created a contract conferring custodial rights to her	Mother: the written agreement identifies her as custodial parent and does not grant shared custody; no intent to relinquish custody	Reversed: no shared-custody contract; agreement’s plain language shows Mother retained custody and parol evidence cannot vary it
Whether court had to reach best-interest fitness inquiry before denying Domestic Partner custody	Domestic Partner: court should have considered best interest and her fitness before denying custodial claim	Mother: absent a valid shared-custody contract, court need not address best interest	Moot: because no contract existed, court was not required to reach best-interest inquiry

In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387 (recognizes parent may contract with nonparent to share custody but limits sharing between parent and nonparent)
In re Mullen, 129 Ohio St.3d 417 (establishes two-prong test: existence of custody-conferring contract, then best-interest inquiry)
Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., 122 Ohio St.3d 546 (explains parol evidence rule prevents contradicting integrated written contracts)
Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Soc. Natl. Bank, 75 Ohio St.3d 443 (discusses parol evidence rule and contract integration)