OhioLaw that Impacts Children with Special Needs

Definitions

  • Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.01. Age of Majority

All persons of the age of eighteen years or more, who are under no legal disability, are capable of contracting and are of full age for all purposes.

  • Ohio Rev. Code Ann.3701.022, Definitions

A “medically handicapped child” means an Ohio resident under twenty-one years of age who suffers primarily from an organic disease, defect, or a congenital or acquired physically handicapping and associated condition that may hinder the achievement of normal growth and development.

Child Support

  • Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3119.22. Deviation from amount resulting from schedule and worksheet.

The court may order an amount of child support that deviates from the amount of child support that would otherwise result from the use of the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet, through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, if, after considering the factors and criteria set forth in section 3119.23 of the Revised Code, the court determines that the amount calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet, through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child.

If it deviates, the court must enter in the journal the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet, through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, its determination that that amount would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child, and findings of fact supporting that determination.

  • Ohio Rev. Code Ann.§ 3119.23.Factors relevant to granting deviation.

The court may consider any of the following factors in determining whether to grant a deviation pursuant to section 3119.22 of the Revised Code:

(A) Special and unusual needs of the children;

(B) Extraordinary obligations for minor children or obligations for handicapped children who are not stepchildren and who are not offspring from the marriage or relationship that is the basis of the immediate child support determination;

(C) Other court-ordered payments;

(D) Extended parenting time or extraordinary costs associated with parenting time, provided that this division does not authorize and shall not be construed as authorizing any deviation from the schedule and the applicable worksheet, through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, or any escrowing, impoundment, or withholding of child support because of a denial of or interference with a right of parenting time granted by court order;

(E) The obligor obtaining additional employment after a child support order is issued in order to support a second family;

(F) The financial resources and the earning ability of the child;

(G) Disparity in income between parties or households;

(H) Benefits that either parent receives from remarriage or sharing living expenses with another person;

(I) The amount of federal, state, and local taxes actually paid or estimated to be paid by a parent or both of the parents;

(J) Significant in-kind contributions from a parent, including, but not limited to, direct payment for lessons, sports equipment, schooling, or clothing;

(K) The relative financial resources, other assets and resources, and needs of each parent;

(L) The standard of living and circumstances of each parent and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage continued or had the parents been married;

(M) The physical and emotional condition and needs of the child;

(N) The need and capacity of the child for an education and the educational opportunities that would have been available to the child had the circumstances requiring a court order for support not arisen;

(O) The responsibility of each parent for the support of others;

(P) Any other relevant factor.

The court may accept an agreement of the parents that assigns a monetary value to any of the factors and criteria listed in this section that are applicable to their situation.

If the court grants a deviation based on division (P) of this section, it shall specifically state in the order the facts that are the basis for the deviation.

  • Hamilton v. Hamilton, 667 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).

A nonresidential parent cannot be ordered to exercise visitation as a form of support by giving the residential parent a break from caring for a special needs child.

Support for Disabled Adult-Child (Post Minority Age Support)

  • Castle . Castle, 15 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1984).

In Castle v. Castle, the court stressed that a domestic relations court has jurisdiction to order a noncustodial parent to continue to provide support for a physically or mentally disabled child even after he or she has reached the age of majority.

As the parties’ child, who had physical and developmental disabilities, was 38 at the time the final judgment of divorce was entered, the trial court had no jurisdiction over him and therefore no authority to order the husband to pay child support or to enter orders regarding custody and visitation. Geygan v. Geygan, 2012 Ohio 1965, 973 N.E.2d 276, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1733 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County 2012).

Father’s motions to strike prior judgments and to dismiss the proceedings were properly denied as a disabled child, who had reached the age of majority when the parties filed for divorce, was properly found to be a minor under R.C. 3109.01 since he was unable to support himself due to his mental retardation; as the child was a minor, the trial court had jurisdiction over issues related to his custody and support under R.C. 3109.04. Wiczynski v. Wiczynski, 2006 Ohio 867, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 773 (Ohio Ct. App., Lucas County Feb. 24, 2006).

Although a trial court erred when it denied a mother’s request pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) and (2) to conduct an in camera interview and appoint a guardian ad litem for the parties’ child in their divorce and parental rights allocation matter, as the child had turned 18 years old and was not under a legal disability, pursuant to R.C. 3109.01 the court lacked authority to grant the relief; any error in the trial court’s ruling was accordingly moot. Spine v. Spine, 2008 Ohio 47, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 38 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County Jan. 10, 2008).

  • Ohio Rev. Code Ann.. § 3119.86.Continuance of support obligation beyond child’s eighteenth birthday.

(A) Notwithstanding section 3109.01 of the Revised Code, both of the following apply:

(1) The duty of support to a child imposed pursuant to a court child support order shall continue beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday only under the following circumstances:

(a) The child is mentally or physically disabled and is incapable of supporting or maintaining himself or herself.

(b) The child’s parents have agreed to continue support beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday pursuant to a separation agreement that was incorporated into a decree of divorce or dissolution.

(c) The child continuously attends a recognized and accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child’s eighteenth birthday.

(2) The duty of support to a child imposed pursuant to an administrative child support order shall continue beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday only if the child continuously attends a recognized and accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child’s eighteenth birthday.

(B) A court child support order shall not remain in effect after the child reaches nineteen years of age unless the order provides that the duty of support continues under circumstances described in division (A)(1)(a) or (b) of this section for any period after the child reaches age nineteen. An administrative child support order shall not remain in effect after the child reaches age nineteen.

(C) If a court incorporates a separation agreement described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section into a decree of divorce or dissolution, the court may not require the duty of support to continue beyond the date the child’s parents have agreed support should terminate.

(D) A parent ordered to pay support under a child support order shall continue to pay support under the order, including during seasonal vacation periods, until the order terminates.

Custody, Visitation, and Relocation

  • Ohio Rev. Code Ann.§ 3109.051(D). Order granting parenting time or companionship or visitation rights.

(D) In determining whether to grant parenting time to a parent pursuant to this section or section 3109.12 of the Revised Code or companionship or visitation rights to a grandparent, relative, or other person pursuant to this section or section 3109.11 or 3109.12 of the Revised Code, in establishing a specific parenting time or visitation schedule, and in determining other parenting time matters under this section or section 3109.12 of the Revised Code or visitation matters under this section or section 3109.11 or 3109.12 of the Revised Code, the court shall consider all of the following factors:

(1) The prior interaction and interrelationships of the child with the child’s parents, siblings, and other persons related by consanguinity or affinity, and with the person who requested companionship or visitation if that person is not a parent, sibling, or relative of the child;

(2) The geographical location of the residence of each parent and the distance between those residences, and if the person is not a parent, the geographical location of that person’s residence and the distance between that person’s residence and the child’s residence;

(3) The child’s and parents’ available time, including, but not limited to, each parent’s employment schedule, the child’s school schedule, and the child’s and the parents’ holiday and vacation schedule;

(4) The age of the child;

(5) The child’s adjustment to home, school, and community;

(6) If the court has interviewed the child in chambers, pursuant to division (C) of this section, regarding the wishes and concerns of the child as to parenting time by the parent who is not the residential parent or companionship or visitation by the grandparent, relative, or other person who requested companionship or visitation, as to a specific parenting time or visitation schedule, or as to other parenting time or visitation matters, the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court;

(7) The health and safety of the child;

(8) The amount of time that will be available for the child to spend with siblings;

(9) The mental and physical health of all parties;

(10) Each parent’s willingness to reschedule missed parenting time and to facilitate the other parent’s parenting time rights, and with respect to a person who requested companionship or visitation, the willingness of that person to reschedule missed visitation;

(11) In relation to parenting time, whether either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an abused child or a neglected child; whether either parent, in a case in which a child has been adjudicated an abused child or a neglected child, previously has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive or neglectful act that is the basis of the adjudication; and whether there is reason to believe that either parent has acted in a manner resulting in a child being an abused child or a neglected child;

(12) In relation to requested companionship or visitation by a person other than a parent, whether the person previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an abused child or a neglected child; whether the person, in a case in which a child has been adjudicated an abused child or a neglected child, previously has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive or neglectful act that is the basis of the adjudication; whether either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the current proceeding; whether either parent previously has been convicted of an offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the current proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense; and whether there is reason to believe that the person has acted in a manner resulting in a child being an abused child or a neglected child;

(13) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied the other parent’s right to parenting time in accordance with an order of the court;

(14) Whether either parent has established a residence or is planning to establish a residence outside this state;

(15) In relation to requested companionship or visitation by a person other than a parent, the wishes and concerns of the child’s parents, as expressed by them to the court;

(16) Any other factor in the best interest of the child.

  • In re C.L.T., 2012 Ohio 427 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

There was no abuse in the trial court’s decision regarding the length of the father’s unsupervised visitation time because the father had made no effort to familiarize himself with his son’s physical and emotional needs, had no experience raising a special needs child, and did not have the appropriate furnishings necessary for the child; the father was simply not properly equipped to exercise any extended unsupervised visitation time.

  • Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04(F)(1)(c) and (e). Allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for care of children; shared parenting.

(F)

(1) In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to this section, whether on an original decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children or a modification of a decree allocating those rights and responsibilities, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

(c) The child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest;

(e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation;

  • Sandys v. Sandys, 2015-Ohio-2208, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 2129 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).

Ample evidence supported modifying custody by designating the father residential and custodial parent of the older child because everyone involved in the older child's life testified that the mother alienated and sabotaged the children's relationships with the father and did not meet the older child's special needs by following up with doctors' recommendations, and any error by the trial court in conducting an in-chambers, off-the-record interview of the children's therapist was harmless.

  • Toops v. Toops, 2004 Ohio 1771, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 1565 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the father’s motion to modify designation of residential parent, as the evidence showed the necessary “change in circumstances” and that modification was in the best interests of the children; it showed that the mother had failed to diligently and consistently provide for the special needs of her children, and that the father was able to provide diligent and consistent parenting to address the needs of the children.

  • In re S.M.T., 2012 Ohio 1745, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1526 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

Trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for a change of custody and keeping the child in the mother’s custody because its discussion of the best interest factors erroneously relied on a mischaracterization of the child’s “special needs,” engaged in improper speculation concerning the permanency of the father’s living arrangements as an officer in the United States Marine Corps, and showed an absolute disregard for the consequences of the mother’s conduct in interfering with the father’s visitation and how that interference has undermined the child’s relationship with her father.

  • In re G.J., 2009 Ohio 6673, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5615 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).

Parent was not entitled to a return of custody of the parent’s oldest child from the child’s grandparent because sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s findings and the lower court, in conformity with a best interest analysis, articulated a process in full conformity with R.C. 3109.04 and stated a reasoned conclusion. The child’s continued custody with the grandparent was in the child’s best interest because the child was well cared for in the placement, another change of schools would have been traumatic, and the presence of two other special needs children in the parent’s home would have denied the child of the positive attention which the child needed.

  • Travis v. Travis, 2007 Ohio 4077 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).

As a trial court found no change in circumstances for purposes of a former husband’s request for a modification of child custody pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), the trial court was not obligated to conduct a best interest determination regarding the child; however, it found that allowing the father the visitation that he was awarded in the divorce decree, rather than an expanded amount that had been previously allowed by the wife, was in the child’s best interest because the wife was better able to handle the child’s special needs issues.