2021 Ohio 217
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- T.H. and N.H. were long-term partners who married in 2015; they executed a notarized co-parenting agreement in 2005 before the children were born and jointly planned having children via donor insemination.
- N.H. gave birth to twins in 2005 and another child in 2010; both women acted as parents in practice (naming, hospital presence, school and medical recognition).
- The parties executed documents (co-parenting agreement, durable medical power of attorney, N.H.'s will naming T.H. guardian) reflecting shared parenting; N.H. revoked only the medical POA after hearings began.
- After the relationship ended, parents effectively split time (2-2-3 rotation); the guardian ad litem recommended shared custody, finding the children viewed both as mothers.
- The juvenile court designated N.H. sole legal custodian and final decisionmaker (Oct. 1, 2019); the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court misapplied legal precedent and that the weight of the evidence supported a shared-custody agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.H.) | Defendant's Argument (N.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did N.H. voluntarily relinquish sole legal custody by words and conduct? | Yes — co-parenting agreement, joint planning, shared parenting duties, documents and GAL support a permanent shared-custody agreement. | No — documents were intended as contingency (e.g., for death), she made major decisions, revoked medical POA, never intended to cede legal custody. | Appellate court: Yes. Totality of words, conduct, and documents established an agreement to share legal custody; trial court erred. |
| Is a court order or formal adoption required to create shared legal custody with a nonparent? | No — Mullen and Rowell permit a parent to relinquish custody through words and conduct without a court-acknowledged agreement. | Trial court suggested legal acknowledgement is required for validity. | Appellate court: No court order is required; words/conduct can create shared legal custody. |
| Was the trial court's factual finding supported by competent, credible evidence (manifest weight)? | Trial-court finding was against manifest weight — much documentary and testimonial evidence favored shared custody and N.H.'s hearing testimony was inconsistent. | Trial court credited N.H.'s testimony and concluded she did not intend to relinquish sole custody. | Appellate court: Trial court clearly lost its way; reversal warranted because the weight of evidence favors T.H. |
| Did the trial court err in incorporating/using the parties' stipulations and agreed entry dates? | Trial court used wrong filing date and failed to incorporate July 23, 2019 agreed entry. | N.H. did not prevail on custody; issue rendered moot by reversal. | Appellate court: Moot (custody reversal); remanded to enter judgment for shared custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullen v. Hobbs, 129 Ohio St.3d 417 (2011) (parent may relinquish sole custody to a nonparent through words and conduct; courts weigh intent, documents, and conduct)
- Bonfield v. Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387 (2002) (discusses limits on shared-parenting arrangements with nonparents and enforceability)
- Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63 (1986) (shared-custody agreements are contractual and enforceable when appropriate)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges and appellate weighing of credibility)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (1990) (custody award supported by substantial credible evidence will not be reversed on weight grounds)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in custody of their children)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide, relevant to parties' marital status and legal context)