In re Z.N.T.
2019 Ohio 915
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Parents (never married) had a 2015 shared parenting plan adopted by Clermont County Juvenile Court; Paragraph N said the juvenile court shall not retain jurisdiction to enforce/modify the plan.
- Father moved for contempt (July 2017) in Clermont; magistrate dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on Paragraph N (Sept. 2017); Clermont court adopted magistrate order; Father did not object and parties later litigated in Hamilton County Juvenile Court.
- Father filed a motion in Clermont (Feb. 2018) to amend the shared parenting plan, arguing Paragraph N was void as against public policy; Mother moved to strike as untimely/barred and pointed to Hamilton County's assumed jurisdiction.
- Clermont magistrate struck Father’s motion (Mar. 2018) after learning Hamilton County had assumed jurisdiction; Father objected; Clermont court sustained Father’s objections and, on Apr. 24, 2018, amended Paragraph N by deleting the word “not,” finding Paragraph N inconsistent with other provisions and against public policy.
- Mother moved for findings of fact and conclusions of law and later appealed denial of that motion and the court’s ruling that Father’s challenge was not untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 52 (findings of fact & conclusions of law) applies & whether trial court erred denying Mother’s request | Civ.R. 52 applies; juvenile court should have issued findings and conclusions | Civil rules apply to custody matters in juvenile court unless clearly inapplicable; Clermont’s entry sufficed | Court: Civ.R. 52 does apply to these juvenile custody proceedings, but any error was harmless because the Apr. 24, 2018 entry contained sufficient facts and legal conclusions; denial affirmed |
| Whether Father’s failure to object earlier waived his right to challenge Paragraph N (and whether Paragraph N was enforceable) | Father’s Feb. 2018 objections were untimely or amounted to a belated Civ.R. 60(B) attack; Hamilton County had assumed jurisdiction | Paragraph N (attempting to remove court’s continuing jurisdiction) is void as against public policy; parties cannot contract away court’s parens patriae duty; prior inaction does not bar challenge | Court: Paragraph N is unenforceable as contrary to public policy (courts retain continuing jurisdiction in custody matters); Father did not waive his right to challenge Paragraph N; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelm v. Kelm, 92 Ohio St.3d 223 (Ohio 2001) (parents cannot contractually remove trial court’s continuing jurisdiction over custody/visitation; parens patriae prevents such waiver)
- Werden v. Crawford, 70 Ohio St.2d 122 (Ohio 1982) (Civ.R. 52 requires written findings/conclusions on timely request in bench trials)
- In re H.W., 114 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2007) (civil rules apply to juvenile custody proceedings except when clearly inapplicable)
- Stone v. Davis, 66 Ohio St.2d 74 (Ohio 1981) (a judgment entry satisfies Civ.R. 52 if it recites sufficient facts and legal conclusions to permit review)
- Myers v. Parks, 167 Ohio App.3d 329 (Ohio Ct. App.) (provision conditioning or deterring access to court for custody matters is against public policy and unenforceable)