In re Mullen
2011 Ohio 3361
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Biological mother Mullen and nonparent Hobbs cohabitated and planned a child via donor sperm; donor Liming signed a donor-recipient agreement relinquishing parental rights; the child was born July 27, 2005 with Mullen as legal mother and Liming as presumed father; Mullen executed documents authorizing Hobbs to act as guardian and to make decisions for the child; the parties co-parented for about two years before relationship deterioration in 2007; Hobbs filed for shared custody, with Liming also petitioning for shared custody, prompting juvenile-court proceedings.
- Juvenile court found no clear contract relinquishing custody and dismissed Hobbs’s shared-custody claim; appellate court affirmed, holding competent evidence supported the lack of an enforceable relinquishment; this Court granted discretionary review to resolve whether a parent’s conduct with a nonparent can create a permanent shared-custody agreement.
- The central question is whether Mullen’s conduct created a contract that permanently relinquished partial custody to Hobbs, requiring a suitability and best-interests analysis if such a contract existed.
- Ohio law permits voluntary shared custody with a nonparent through a valid agreement, but requires relinquishment of some parental rights; the existence of such a contract is a factual question reviewed for preponderance of the evidence.
- The majority affirms the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence did not prove a permanent relinquishment and endorses continued emphasis on a written or clearly proven agreement, while noting that coparenting terms do not automatically equal a contract for permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a contract permanently relinquishing partial custody to Hobbs? | Hobbs argues Mullen’s conduct and documents formed an enforceable relinquishment. | Mullen did not intend to relinquish sole custody; revocable documents and lack of a formal agreement show no contract. | No enforceable contract proven; custody not permanently relinquished. |
| What standard governs review of domestic-custody findings? | Preponderance of evidence supports a relinquishment finding. | Trial court’s findings reviewed for weight and credibility; substantial credible evidence supports no relinquishment. | Preponderance and credibility standard applied; findings upheld. |
| Does coparenting evidence alone prove permanent custody relinquishment? | Coparenting documents and conduct indicate a shared-custody agreement. | Coparenting evidence does not alone prove a permanent relinquishment without a clear, enforceable contract. | Coparenting evidence insufficient to prove permanent relinquishment. |
| Should such cases be documented in writing to protect interests? | Written documentation is preferred but not strictly required; however, lack of writing complicates proof of relinquishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonfield v. Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387 (Ohio 2002) (recognizes valid shared-custody agreements and that they are enforceable under appropriate review)
- Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 1986) (recognizes contractual relinquishment of custody to a nonparent may be enforceable)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (parental relinquishment may be proven by conduct and context, not only writings)
- In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387 (Ohio 2002) (discusses scope of parental rights and need to consider best interests in custody disputes involving nonparents)
- Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 1986) (factors for relinquishment of custody by a natural parent to a nonparent)
- In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 193 Wis.2d 649 (Wis. 1995) (four-factor test for establishing a parent-like relationship in custody disputes (Wisconsin))