In re M.O.
2017 Ohio 7691
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents shared parenting per a Stark County order; Summit County CSB filed dependency in Feb 2015 after the child witnessed domestic violence at Father’s home.
- Juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and placed the child under protective supervision; later dispositional proceedings occurred.
- Magistrate awarded Mother legal custody, terminated protective supervision, set a parenting-time schedule (including first three weekends to Father), and ordered Father to pay child support; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Father objected, arguing the court should have applied R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) (change-in-circumstances plus best interest) because the award affected a prior shared parenting decree; Mother argued the order terminated, not modified, the shared parenting plan and only best interest was required.
- After appeal was filed from the dispositional order, the juvenile court issued a nunc pro tunc order clarifying visitation; that nunc pro tunc was entered without leave from the appellate court and was later challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child support order was defective for lacking a worksheet | Order void because worksheet not attached to final judgment | Worksheet attached to magistrate’s decision; final judgment incorporated it | Worksheet attached to magistrate decision sufficed; no reversal needed (assignment III overruled) |
| Whether parenting-time schedule had to be attached to the final judgment | Judgment defective because Stark parenting schedule not attached | Initial adoption ordered attachment; later judgment adhered to prior order, effectively incorporating schedule | Juvenile court’s adherence to prior order incorporated the schedule; no reversal (assignment II overruled) |
| Whether juvenile court had to apply R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) (change-in-circumstances + best interest) before awarding legal custody where a prior shared parenting order existed | Court should assess change-in-circumstances per R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) before awarding legal custody | Termination of shared parenting is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) or, after dependency adjudication, dispositional statute controls and only best interest is required | Any failure to cite R.C. 3109.04 was harmless; after dependency adjudication court may decide legal custody based on best interest (assignment IV overruled) |
| Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to issue a nunc pro tunc order after appeal was docketed without appellate leave | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter nunc pro tunc after appeal filed without leave | Juvenile court intended to correct clerical inconsistency | Trial court lacked jurisdiction; nunc pro tunc order issued after appeal is void and vacated (assignment I sustained) |
Key Cases Cited
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (trial court must include child support worksheet in the record)
- In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (juvenile court has custody jurisdiction after dependency adjudication but must exercise it consistent with R.C. 3109.04)
- In re James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 (addressed application/constitutionality of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) in context of post-adjudication custody issues)