By: Jennifer Z. - Title: Ohio: Authority of Juvenile Court Upon Transfer from Common Please Court

Link for opinion: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2014/2014-ohio-2597.pdf Title: Ohio: Authority of Juvenile Court Upon Transfer from Common Please Court The Ohio Court of Appeals held that in In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572, 2014-Ohio-2597 a child is not a proper party in a divorce action or its ancillary custody proceedings, even if she is joined as a party defendant pursuant to CIV.R. 75(B)(2). However, the Court also recognized that even though she is not a party to the action, a child who is the subject of custody litigation arising from a divorce has an interest in the matter. The Court held that in child-custody litigation arising from a divorce, a court has discretion to exclude the child from any proceeding if, the totality of the circumstances; exclusion is in the best interest of that child. The fifteen-year-old daughter of Lolita and Patrick (last name not mentioned in order to protect A.G’s identity) filed a motion to terminate visitation with her father. She is the only child “caught in a web of parental hostility and ongoing conflict.” From June 1998, when Patrick filed for divorce, to January 2011 there had been an array of issues, mostly stemming from Patrick side. In February 1999 Patrick ran away with A.G and as a result he was found in contempt of agreed visitation order and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Patrick was in possession of $55,234 in cash, fake birth certificates for himself and A.G. and a fake ID card bearing his picture and the name of “Michael James Phillips.” Two years later, on February 23, 2001, The Henry County Domestic Relations Court approved a consent judgment entry of divorce. Within weeks of the order Lolita ran away with A.G. and a year later it was released that A.G. had been forcibly abducted from Lolita’s Moscow home. The FBI believed Patrick was responsible. On July 25, 2002, the juvenile court certified that A.G. be put in the temporary custody of the county, as she was not safe with either parent. On September 23, 2002,the juvenile court awarded custody of A.G. to Lolita and granted Patrick unsupervised visitation. In February 2009 A.G. wrote a letter to her father where she stated she had no intention of visiting him in North Carolina again. Based Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16, the court ordered that the motion to terminate visitation filed on behalf of the minor child is denied. The court ruled that A.G. had not met her burden of proof as she failed to be clear and convincing evidence that an extraordinary circumstance exists to terminate her father’s visits.