Price v. Nixon
2011 Ohio 2430
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Three children were in a custody dispute between Cynthia Price and Matthew Nixon, with no custody order previously in place; Cynthia had de facto and de jure custody as the unmarried mother under Ohio law.
- Matthew filed a custody motion in juvenile court which appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL).
- GAL reports ultimately suggested Susan Ott (paternal grandmother, a nonparty) as a possible custodian; the court later considered Ott as a custodian option.
- During the April 12 and April 30, 2010 hearings, the court preliminarily engaged with witnesses and then indicated it would write a decision and potentially designate Ott as custodian, effectively closing the hearing to further parental testimony.
- On May 7, 2010, the juvenile court awarded custody to Ott and denied Price’s contempt motion; the court did not provide Price with notice or an opportunity to be heard on the possibility of a nonparent custodian; Price appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated by awarding custody to a nonparent without notice or hearing. | Price claims notice and opportunity to be heard were not provided. | Nixon contends the court followed proper procedures and the GAL's input supported its decision. | Due process violation; remand required. |
| Whether the GAL’s recommendation/report could be considered if not admitted as an exhibit. | The GAL report was not properly admitted or introduced at trial. | The GAL reports informed the court's reasoning. | Issue moot after remand; not resolved on appeal. |
| Whether the trial court properly found Price and Nixon unsuitable to have custody. | Court erred in declaring unsuitability without proper notice/hearing. | Court correctly evaluated parental fitness under best-interests standards. | Mooted by remand; not decided on appeal. |
| Whether the visitation order improperly delegated discretion to Ott. | Visitation terms were vague and overly discretionary. | Visitation must be shaped by the court in accordance with law. | Mooted by remand; court may structure parenting time on remand. |
| Whether the contempt ruling against Price should be upheld given evidence of inconsistent support payments. | Cynthia proved nonpayment; contempt was proper. | Matthew offered defenses (unemployment, payment issues); not clearly contemptuous. | Contempt affirmed or not clearly erroneous; remains unresolved due to remand in other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio Supreme Court) (parental custody rights; nonparent custodian requires unsuitability finding)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. (1923)) (fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning care of children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (due process protect parental rights in custody decisions)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000) (parents have fundamental rights to custody; state action requires fair procedures)
- In re Hua, 62 Ohio St.2d 227 (Ohio Supreme Court) (due process and notice requirements in family custody matters)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (nonparent custody decisions require fair process)