In re LaPiana
BEFORE: Boyle, J., Rocco, P.J., and Sweeney, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 5, 2010
Katherine A. Friedell
John E. Schoonover
Schoonover, Andrews, & Rosenthal, LLC
North Point Tower, Suite 1720
1001 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1151
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE, RITA GOODMAN
Pamela J. MacAdams
Alexander J. Kipp
Morganstern, MacAdams, & Devito Co., L.P.A.
623 West St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1204
Camilla B. Taylor
Lambda Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
Midwest Regional Office
11 East Adams, Suite 1008
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
For American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Carl A. Murway
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP
3500 BP Tower
200 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302
Guardian Ad Litem
John V. Heutsche
John V. Heutsche Co., L.P.A.
700 West St. Clair Avenue
Hoyt Block Building, Suite 220
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1274
For National Association of Social Workers
Daniel B. Miller
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur
41 South High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
For National Center for Lesbian Rights
Joy B. Savren
717 Hanna Building
1422 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
MARY J. BOYLE, J.:
{¶ 1} For approximately ten years, appellant, Siobhan LaPiana, and appellee, Rita Goodman, were in a committed relationship. During that time, LaPiana gave birth to two children, S. LaPiana and J. LaPiana, both by anonymous artificial insemination. Six years after the couple separated, Goodman filed an application in the juvenile court under
{¶ 2} The trial court found, after considering all of the evidence, that “[d]uring the nearly ten-year relationship between the two women all the evidence indicates they functioned as a family unit.” The trial court further found that after the two separated, Goodman “continued to enjoy a significant involvement in the
{¶ 3} The trial court ordered that LaPiana be the children’s residential parent and legal custodian of the children and further ordered that as such, she had all rights to make decisions regarding the children’s religion, doctors, medical treatment, and school selection. It then fashioned a “companionship/visitation schedule” for the children, giving Goodman visitation with the children every other weekend, one day per week, and three weeks of summer vacation. It further ordered that Goodman shall be entitled to notification of school events and activities, and be entitled to reports of the boys’ academic progress.
{¶ 4} It is from this judgment that LaPiana appeals, raising four assignments of error for our review:
{¶ 5} “[1.] The trial court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with respondent-appellant’s custodial and parental rights, absent a prior finding of unsuitability.
{¶ 6} “[2.] The trial court exceeded its authority in granting petitioner-appellee visitation and quasi-parental rights with the minor children of respondent-appellant because no statute grants petitioner-appellee standing to assert such rights.
{¶ 7} “[3.] The trial court erred when it failed to recognize that the juvenile court is a court of law and not equity and granted possession time and other rights to petitioner-appellee not authorized by statute.
{¶ 9} After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
Juvenile Court’s Jurisdiction and Authority
{¶ 10} In her first assignment of error, LaPiana argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant “visitation and quasi-parental rights” to Goodman. In her second and third assignments, she contends that it exceeded its authority in doing so. For ease of discussion, we will address these assignments together.
{¶ 11} Over 30 years ago, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the standard courts must apply when deciding custody disputes between a parent and a nonparent. In In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 369 N.E.2d 1047, the high court held at the syllabus that in a “child custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, the hearing officer may not award custody to the nonparent without first making a finding of parental unsuitability that is, without first determining that a preponderance of the evidence shows [1] that the parent abandoned the child, [2] that the parent contractually relinquished custody of the child, [3] that the parent has become totally incapable of supporting or caring for the child, or [4] that an award of custody to the parent would be detrimental to the child.” Thus, if a court concludes that any one of these circumstances describes
{¶ 12} Less than ten years later, in Masitto v. Masitto (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 63, 488 N.E.2d 857, the Ohio Supreme Court held that if a parent contractually relinquishes custody of a child to a nonparent, then in a subsequent custody proceeding between the parent and nonparent, “the general rule is that such award will not be modified unless ‘necessary to serve the best interest of the child.’
{¶ 13} More recently, in In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387, 2002-Ohio-6660, 780 N.E.2d 241, in an opinion authored by the late Chief Justice Moyer, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the trial and appellate courts and held that under
{¶ 15} The Supreme Court noted that “[n]otwithstanding her role as the primary caregiver for their children, Shelly has no legally recognized rights with regard to [the children]. Lacking such legal rights, she does not have equal access to the children’s medical or school records, and is unable to authorize medical care or obtain medical insurance coverage for the children.” Id. at ¶7. It explained that Teri and Shelly filed their Petition for Allocation of Parental Rights and Responsibilities, seeking to “confirm their commitment that they will both continue to raise the children regardless of what happens to their relationship.” Id. at ¶9.
{¶ 16} The trial court in Bonfield had found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the shared parenting petition because Shelly was “not a parent within the meaning of
{¶ 17} The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, reasoning:
{¶ 18} “Although we have concluded that Shelly does not qualify as a parent pursuant to
{¶ 19} The Ohio Supreme Court went on to hold in Bonfield that upon remand, the trial court, “in exercising its discretion in giving due consideration to all known factors *** may determine whether a shared custody agreement between Teri and Shelly is in the best interests of the children.” Id. at ¶49-50.
{¶ 20} LaPiana maintains, however, that “[s]ince the General Assembly has not seen fit to enact a statute giving persons such as Goodman access to the
{¶ 21} LaPiana further maintains that Bonfield does not apply because she and Goodman are no longer together, and the petitioners in Bonfield were. We also disagree with this argument. Certainly, even before Bonfield, juvenile courts had jurisdiction and the authority to decide custody and visitation disputes between a parent and a nonparent after the parent voluntarily relinquished custody. Just as the First Appellate District stated in In re Mullen, 185 Ohio App.3d 457, 2009-Ohio-6934, 924 N.E.2d 448,3 with respect to proving contractual relinquishment of “sole custody”: “[w]e find no reason, nor did the trial court, why a partial relinquishment in favor of shared custody” should be treated any differently (in the same way as contractual relinquishment of custody, i.e., by conduct). (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶12. The same reasoning applies to this
{¶ 22} Moreover, we find a recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling on a writ of prohibition to be persuasive in this case. See State ex rel. Smith v. Gill, Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2010-0679. Two women, Julie Rowell and Julie Smith, were in a committed relationship for seven years. During that time, Smith was artificially inseminated and subsequently gave birth to M.S. For the first five years of M.S.’s life, Rowell and Smith lived together with M.S. When the couple separated, Rowell petitioned the Franklin County Juvenile Court for shared custody of M.S. and requested a temporary companionship schedule while the case was pending.
{¶ 23} Rowell averred in her petition that Smith voluntarily relinquished her “exclusive custody rights.” Rowell asserted that she and Smith planned the pregnancy together, that she inseminated Smith with a syringe, and that she attended all of Smith’s fertility appointments, checkups during the pregnancy, and Lamaze classes. Rowell further asserted that she was the one who cut M.S.’s umbilical cord and that she and Smith named M.S. together, matching the child’s middle name to Rowell’s middle name to “connect” the child to Rowell. According to Rowell, she acted as M.S.’s second parent in every way during the first five years of M.S.’s life.
{¶ 25} Smith subsequently filed a writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming that the juvenile court judge “patently and unambiguously lack[ed] jurisdiction to issue orders granting visitation to Rowell or to grant any kind of custodial rights.” Smith argued that Rowell was an “unrelated third party — a legal stranger to the child — who lacks even the slightest basis for a [custody petition].” Smith requested that the Ohio Supreme Court direct the juvenile court judge to “cease and desist” (1) from exercising jurisdiction over the case, (2) from granting Rowell any visitation rights, or (3) from granting Rowell any custody rights without first finding that Smith was unsuitable.
{¶ 26} Rowell and the juvenile court judge moved to dismiss the writ because, inter alia, “without a showing of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, [Smith] has an adequate remedy at law available.”4 On June 23,
{¶ 27} We therefore find that under Perales, Masitto, and Bonfield, the juvenile court had jurisdiction under
Contractual Relinquishment
{¶ 28} First, LaPiana spends a great deal of time arguing that because there was no evidence that she was “unsuitable,” relying on the standard set forth in Perales, the trial court had no authority to interfere with her parental rights. But we agree with Goodman that under Perales, unsuitability does not mean the trial court must find that you are a “bad” parent. Rather, if a trial court finds that a parent contractually relinquished custody of the child, then the parent is
{¶ 29} LaPiana further argues that she did not contractually relinquish her parental rights. She claims that any agreement she signed before the first child’s birth is not enforceable.
{¶ 30} The Ohio Supreme Court delineated our standard of review in Masitto. It explained “[w]hether or not a parent relinquishes rights to custody is a question of fact which, once determined, will be upheld on appeal if there is some reliable, credible evidence to support the finding.” Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d at 66. Thus, a finding of parental unsuitability is therefore based upon the facts of each case that are presented to the court through testimony and other evidence.
{¶ 31} As the First Appellate District recently explained:
{¶ 32} “It is well established in Ohio that a parent may contractually relinquish parental rights to a third-party nonparent. And in In re Bonfield, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that a parent may voluntarily relinquish sole custody of a child in favor of shared custody with a nonparent. A court must look to the parent’s conduct ‘taken as whole’ to determine whether there has been a contractual relinquishment.” (Emphasis added.) Mullen, 185 Ohio App.3d at ¶6, citing, inter alia, Perales, Masitto, and Bonfield.
{¶ 33} Moreover, a written agreement, while instructive, is not necessary; a parent may relinquish custody by conduct, and a court must look at the evidence as a whole. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d at 66; see, also, Mullen at ¶11.
{¶ 35} LaPiana was artificially inseminated for both children, using the same anonymous donor. Goodman and LaPiana chose the donor together, ultimately deciding on one who was Jewish, and of Russian and Polish background, to match Goodman’s religious and ethnic heritage, and who also had similar educational interests to both LaPiana and Goodman.
{¶ 36} The children were born in 1997 (S. LaPiana) and 2000 (J. LaPiana). Based on Jewish tradition, LaPiana and Goodman chose first names for the children after Goodman’s relatives who had passed away, and they gave the children Goodman’s last name.5 The children were also given Hebrew names, with both LaPiana and Goodman listed as parents on the naming certificates. The record is replete with many more exhibits, establishing that not only did the boys know Goodman as their mother, so did everyone else, including friends, teachers, health insurance carriers, and doctors. Several documents also
{¶ 37} Before the first child, S. LaPiana, was born, LaPiana and Goodman entered into a written “Agreement to Jointly Raise Our Child.” In the agreement, they sought to “set our rights and obligations regarding our child who’ll be born to us by Siobhan.” They agreed to “jointly and equally parent,” to have “equal power to make medical decisions” for the child, and to both “be responsible for [his] support” until he reaches the age of majority or finishes college. They further agreed to “participate in a jointly agreed-upon program of counseling if either considers separating” due to “the possible trauma our separation might cause our child.”
{¶ 38} LaPiana and Goodman even considered the effect a possible separation would have on the child and agreed that if they did separate, “we will do our best to see that our child maintains a close and loving relationship with each of us,” “will share in our child’s upbringing, and will share in our child’s support,” “will make a good-faith effort to jointly make all major decisions affecting our child’s health and welfare,” and “will base all decisions upon the best interests of our child.” And they further agreed that upon a separation, “the person who has actual physical custody will take all steps necessary to maximize the other’s visitation, and help make visitation as easy as possible.”
{¶ 39} Based upon LaPiana’s conduct, taken as a whole, we cannot say the trial court erred in finding that she contractually relinquished sole custody of S.
{¶ 40} As we noted earlier, LaPiana submitted a “notice of supplemental authority” after oral arguments were heard in this case, and attached Mullen, 185 Ohio App.3d 457.6 In Mullen, the First Appellate District recently found that a trial court did not err in finding that a lesbian parent did not contractually relinquish sole custody of a child to her former partner. Id. at ¶8. Although the couple did not have a written agreement, the former partner argued that the parent’s “conduct unequivocally demonstrated” that she had given the partner shared custody. Id. at ¶7.
{¶ 41} The former partner pointed to the following findings by the trial court in support of her argument: (1) that the two women had planned for and paid for the pregnancy together, (2) that the partner was present at the child’s birth, (3) that the partner’s name appeared on a ceremonial birth certificate, (4) that the two women jointly cared for the child, (5) that they had held themselves out as and had acted as a family, (6) that the parent, the children, and others had
{¶ 42} The First District agreed with the former partner that those facts were “strong evidence that Mullen had intended to give [her] shared custody” of the child. Id. at ¶7. The appellate court further agreed with the former partner that “the law does not require a written agreement to establish shared custody.” Id. at ¶11. But the First District could not overlook the one factor “most heavily” relied upon by the trial court — that the parent “had known that a Bonfield-type agreement [i.e., shared custody granted by the juvenile court] was an option, but had repeatedly refused to enter into one.” Id. at ¶12. The trial court found this was strong evidence that the parent did not intend to share custody of the child with her former partner, and the appellate court agreed. Mullen at ¶8, 12.
{¶ 43} Here, a Bonfield-type agreement was not available when S. LaPiana and J. LaPiana were born. Bonfield was decided in late 2002, at a time when LaPiana and Goodman were separated but still cooperating with one another regarding the children. And there is absolutely no evidence in the record that when a Bonfield-type agreement became a viable option, that LaPiana or
{¶ 44} Indeed, the evidence here of LaPiana’s intent to give shared custody to Goodman is even stronger than in Mullen. Not only are all eight factors that were present in Mullen (that the First District found to be “strong evidence” of intent) also present here, but LaPiana and Goodman also had a written “Agreement to Jointly Raise Our Child.” And although this agreement only applied to S. LaPiana, we find that based on LaPiana’s conduct as a whole, she clearly intended Goodman to have shared custody of the second child, J. LaPiana, as well. In addition to all of the other facts, this was further evidenced by LaPiana’s letter to Goodman, telling her why she wanted to expand their family and have a second child (“our family feels incomplete with just one child of course, our family is wonderful, and full of love and delight, and if no second child comes, it will remain so. But a second child, I feel, would complete the circle.”).
{¶ 45} LaPiana disputes many of these facts, claiming — despite the GAL’s testimony and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary — that everything she did within the ten-year relationship, including picking the donor, naming the
{¶ 46} Thus, there was not only “some reliable, credible evidence” here that LaPiana intended to give shared custody of the children to Goodman, there was “strong evidence” of such. See Mullen, 185 Ohio App.3d at ¶7. Therefore, this court must defer to the trial court’s finding that LaPiana contractually relinquished sole custody. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d at 66.
Juvenile Court’s Standard: Best Interests of the Children
{¶ 47} Under Masitto and Bonfield, if a trial court finds that a parent contractually relinquished sole custody to a nonparent, then in a subsequent custody proceeding between the parent and nonparent, the court must determine what would be in the children’s best interests.
{¶ 48} Generally, the trial court’s discretion with respect to child custody issues should be accorded the utmost respect, especially in view of the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court’s determination will have on the lives of the participants. See Davis v. Flickinger (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 674 N.E.2d
{¶ 49} When LaPiana and Goodman separated in 2001, they seemingly followed their agreement regarding support and equal parenting time — until approximately late 2006. Twelve pages of emails, spanning a number of years, were entered into evidence, establishing that after the parties separated, they fully cooperated with each other, took turns picking the children up from school, alternated weekends and holidays with the children, planned and shared the children’s birthday parties, were flexible on schedules if the other had a conflict, and discussed and planned summer camp options for the boys. They lived within blocks of each other, making this arrangement easy for everyone, especially the children.
{¶ 50} But all of that changed in late 2006, when LaPiana, who was then in a heterosexual relationship, sent an email to Goodman stating, “[t]he children and
{¶ 51} Soon after LaPiana began denying Goodman as much time with the children as she had previously had, Goodman filed her application in the juvenile court under
{¶ 52} In addition to the two parties, the guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Goodman’s mother, and Goodman’s friend testified.
{¶ 53} The GAL in this case, attorney John Heutsche, testified that the boys have always referred to LaPiana and Goodman as “momma” or “mommy.” He emphasized that “[t]he only distinction that they’ve ever made is they’ve always told me very clearly that Siobhan is their biological mother and that Rita is their non-biological mother. But they’ve never indicated that either woman is anything other than a mother, and the fact that they have two mothers.” He stated that it would be “devastating to the boys” if Goodman was no longer in their lives. Heutsche recommended an extensive companionship plan to the trial court, based on what the two women had traditionally followed until late 2006.
{¶ 54} Goodman’s mother testified that the boys were her grandchildren and they always had been. They called her grandma, and had been to Florida to visit her many times and she to Ohio to visit them. She also provided financial support to them when they needed it. She stated that her late husband died
{¶ 55} At the hearing, the trial court stated to the parties, “[y]ou had a relationship together. You had it for a long time. *** This is just a question of trying to do something for these kids that you both love, and try to do what is best for them by maintaining the relationship between the two of you. And it should not be that problematic. I mean, when these children were born, and newborns, you both decided that each one would call you mom. They didn’t decide that on their own. And that was okay until something happened.”
{¶ 56} A short time later, the trial court said, referring to what happens when couples separate and become vindictive, “I hate to see that happen, not because I care about you two, you’re adults. But I do care about the affect that it has on the kids.”
{¶ 57} The trial court found, after considering all of the evidence, that “[d]uring the nearly 10[-]year relationship between the two women all the evidence indicates they functioned as a family unit.” The trial court further found that after the two separated in 2001, Goodman “continued to enjoy a significant involvement in the lives of the two boys,” and that “involvement, however, changed when [LaPiana] became involved in a heterosexual relationship.”
{¶ 58} The trial court ordered that LaPiana be the children’s residential parent and legal custodian of the children and further ordered that as such, she
{¶ 59} Ultimately, the trial court gave Goodman considerably less companionship time per month than the GAL had recommended (which was even more time than the court’s standardized visitation schedule due to Goodman’s academic schedule). And in fact, the trial court gave Goodman less time with the children per month than LaPiana had offered Goodman. LaPiana testified at trial that she was willing to give Goodman one weekend of visitation per month and two evenings each week. The trial court actually gave Goodman less visitation during the week (only one day instead of two, which equals four days less per month), but one more weekend per month (three days per month more), for a total of one day less per month.
{¶ 60} Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Goodman companionship with the children, finding that it was in the children’s best interests.
{¶ 61} LaPiana’s first, second, and third assignments of error are without merit.
Fourteenth Amendment and Ohio’s Defense of Marriage Amendment
{¶ 63} A parent’s fundamental right to raise a child without state inference is not violated when the parent contractually relinquishes custody. Perales at the syllabus. And the Ohio Defense of Marriage Amendment says nothing about parenting or children.
{¶ 64} LaPiana’s fourth assignment of error is also without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE OPINION
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., DISSENTING:
{¶ 65} My colleagues’ opinion is based upon an erroneous assumption: that the trial court granted Goodman and LaPiana shared custody of S. LaPiana and J. LaPiana. It did not. The court granted LaPiana sole custody of the children. It granted Goodman visitation. Therefore, we must analyze the trial court’s decision under the laws governing visitation, not custody.
{¶ 66} “ ‘Visitation’ and ‘custody’ are related but distinct legal concepts. ‘Custody’ resides in the party or parties who have the right to ultimate legal and physical control of a child. ‘Visitation’ resides in a noncustodial party and encompasses that party’s right to visit the child. * * * In other words, ‘visitation’ is granted to someone who does not have ‘custody.’” In re Gibson (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 168, 171, 573 N.E.2d 1074.
{¶ 67} Goodman asked the juvenile court to designate her as the children’s legal parent and establish a shared parenting plan, but the court did not. Rather, the juvenile court ordered, in pertinent part, that:
{¶ 68} “1. Respondent [LaPiana] shall be named residential parent and legal custodian for the minor children * * *.
{¶ 69} “2. All decisions regarding religion, physician selection, medical treatment, and school selection shall be made by the residential parent.
{¶ 70} “3. Petitioner [Goodman] shall be entitled to notification of school events and activities and shall be entitled to reports of the boys[’] academic progress and Respondent [LaPiana] shall provide her with the same. [Goodman] shall be entitled to attend all school activities and events with the exception of parent/teacher conferences. {¶ 71} “4. Petitioner [Goodman] shall be entitled to the following companionship/visitation schedule:
{¶ 72} “* * * ”
{¶ 73} Goodman was not awarded custody of the children. She has not cross-appealed from the juvenile court’s denial of her request for custody or shared parenting. LaPiana obviously was not prejudiced by the order to the extent that it awarded her sole legal custody of the children. Therefore, the question addressed by the majority — whether LaPiana contractually relinquished sole custody of the children — has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal.
Jurisdiction
{¶ 74} In her first assignment of error, LaPiana argues that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to interfere with her custody of the children unless it found that she was not a suitable parent. Despite the phrasing of the assignment of error, the issue is not truly jurisdictional.
Authority to Order Visitation in a Custody Case
{¶ 75} Though not directly raised by the parties, there is an issue whether the juvenile court had authority to order visitation as part of its determination of a custody action initiated in the juvenile court. The Ohio Supreme Court left this question open in In re Gibson, 61 Ohio St.3d 168, 171, at fn. 3, but implicitly answered it in the affirmative in Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165. In Harrold, the juvenile court granted visitation rights to the maternal grandparents of a child born to an unmarried woman after the court awarded custody to the child’s father. The Supreme Court proceeded to address a certified conflict on the question “[w]hether ‘Ohio courts are obligated to afford “special weight” to the wishes of the parents of minor children concerning non-parental visitation as outlined in Troxel v. Granville (2000), 530 U.S. 57.’” In doing so, the court did not consider that there was any issue whether a juvenile court could order visitation in a custody proceeding initiated in the juvenile court. Based on Harrold, therefore, I believe the juvenile court had jurisdiction to award visitation in an action to determine custody.
Standing
{¶ 76} In her second assignment of error, LaPiana contends that Goodman did not have standing to request visitation under any Ohio statute. She cites two statutes allowing a court to order visitation outside the context of a divorce, separation or annulment proceeding. First,
{¶ 77}
{¶ 78} It is well settled that the term “relative” includes persons related by consanguinity and persons related by affinity. Goodman is not related to LaPiana by blood. Relationships by affinity are generally those created by marriage, for example, the relationship of father- or mother-in-law, or of step-parent and -child.
{¶ 79} The term “affinity” is potentially broader than this. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) 59 defines “affinity” as “a close agreement; relation; spiritual relation or attraction held to exist between certain persons.” The
{¶ 80} In the context of familial relationships, affinity relationships are sometimes extremely attenuated. For example, a step-grandmother (whose son married the child’s mother after the child’s birth) was found to have standing to seek visitation with the child after the child was permanently removed from the mother’s custody. McFall v. Watson, 178 Ohio App.3d 540, 2008-Ohio-5204, 899 N.E.2d 158. Moreover, a stepfather has been granted visitation with a child under
{¶ 81} The thread connecting the child and the person seeking visitation in all of these cases is a relationship with one of the child’s parents by marriage. For this reason, I do not believe the concept of affinity relationships can be stretched to include unmarried domestic partners. Ohio does not recognize the relationship between unmarried partners in its domestic relations laws. When unmarried domestic partners separate, there is no legal provision for, e.g., the
{¶ 82} Since Goodman was not related to LaPiana by affinity, she was not entitled to visitation with LaPiana’s children under
{¶ 83} I am fully cognizant of the lasting psychological and emotional impact my opinion would have on the parties and the children alike. However, I cannot in good conscience approve the mistaken analysis the majority has followed to reach its more humane result. This is “[a] government of laws, and not of men.” We are limited by the statutory authority granted to us by the legislature.
{¶ 84} LaPiana’s third assignment of error urges that the juvenile court fashioned equitable rights for Goodman beyond the court’s statutory authority. Fourth, LaPiana argues that the juvenile court violated her parental rights under the
{¶ 85} I would affirm the award of custody to LaPiana but reverse the award of visitation to Goodman. Accordingly, I dissent.