Rowell v. Smith
978 N.E.2d 146
Ohio2012Background
- Rowell filed a petition under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) seeking shared custody and temporary companionship rights with Smith's child.
- A series of juvenile-court temporary orders granted shared custody and visitation between Rowell and the child.
- Smith was designated custodian with Rowell's visitation, followed by contempt proceedings when visitation was violated.
- The Court of Appeals held the juvenile court lacked authority to order visitation under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2).
- The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether a juvenile court may issue temporary visitation orders under Juv.R. 13(B)(1).
- The court held that, when proceeding under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), a juvenile court may issue temporary visitation orders in the child’s best interest during litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a juvenile court issue temporary visitation during custody litigation under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2)? | Smith: no statutory authority to grant visitation | Rowell: yes under Juv.R. 13(B)(1) for best interest | Yes; temporary visitation permitted in best interests |
| Does granting temporary visitation violate parental due process or Troxel rights? | Smith: violates fundamental parental rights | Court may permit if in child’s best interest | No violation; best-interest standard controls |
| Does Gibson limit juvenile court authority to custody vs. visitation in this context? | Smith: Gibson precludes visitation orders absent custody | Distinguish Gibson; case involves simultaneous custody and visitation | Gibson distinguished; authority exists when custody is in play |
| What is the proper statutory interpretation in light of Bonfield/Gibson? | Smith: Bonfield excludes nonparent visitation absent custody | Bonfield supports nonparent rights in custody context | Bonfield supports jurisdiction to grant visitation during custody action |
| Are temporary orders subject to appellate review or enforcement otherwise? | Smith: orders lack authority and are reviewable | Orders issued within jurisdiction are reviewable like other orders | Temporary orders valid within jurisdiction and subject to ordinary review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387 (2002-Ohio-6660) (nonparents may seek custody; custody includes visitation; authority contested)
- In re Gibson, 61 Ohio St.3d 168 (1991) (visitation sole claim not within custody jurisdiction; distinction clarified)
- Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 (2005-Ohio-5334) (Troxel presumption of fit parents; not irrebuttable)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents’ fundamental rights; best interests reviewed)