Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Purvis v. Hazelbakergreen2 sentences2023Polhamus [v. Robinson], 2017-Ohio-39 , 80 N.E.3d 1142 , at ¶ 26 (3rd Dist.), citing In re Brayden James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2007-Ohio-2335 , 866 N.E.2d 467 ; Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 181 Ohio App.3d 167 , 908 N.E.2d 489 , 2009-Ohio-765, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.) (“[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. 2023Polhamus [v. Robinson], 2017-Ohio-39 , 80 N.E.3d 1142 , at ¶ 26 (3rd Dist.), citing In re Brayden James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2007-Ohio-2335 , 866 N.E.2d 467 ; Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 181 Ohio App.3d 167 , 908 N.E.2d 489 , 2009-Ohio-765, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.) (“[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. | 3 | 4 |
Perales v. Ninogreen1 sentence2013Medina No. 2016, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 54 , *8 (Jan. 2, 1992). {¶52} In In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 98 (1977) the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “parents may be denied custody only if a preponderance of the evidence indicates abandonment, contractual relinquishment of custody, total inability to provide care or support, or that the parent is otherwise unsuitable -- that is, that an award of custody would be detrimental to the child.” “Thus, a finding of parental unsuitability has 11 been recognized by [the Supreme Court of Ohio] as a necessary first step in child custody proceedings betwe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bragg v. Hatfield
green
2 sentences2009In Bragg v. Hatfield, 152 Ohio App.3d 174 , 2003-Ohio-1441 , 787 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 21 , we noted that once custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. 2009In Bragg v. Hatfield, 152 Ohio App.3d 174 , 2003-Ohio-1441 , 787 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 21 , we noted that once custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. | 3 | 2006–2017 |
In re James
green
2 sentences2023Polhamus [v. Robinson], 2017-Ohio-39 , 80 N.E.3d 1142 , at ¶ 26 (3rd Dist.), citing In re Brayden James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2007-Ohio-2335 , 866 N.E.2d 467 ; Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 181 Ohio App.3d 167 , 908 N.E.2d 489 , 2009-Ohio-765, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.) (“[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. 2023Polhamus [v. Robinson], 2017-Ohio-39 , 80 N.E.3d 1142 , at ¶ 26 (3rd Dist.), citing In re Brayden James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2007-Ohio-2335 , 866 N.E.2d 467 ; Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 181 Ohio App.3d 167 , 908 N.E.2d 489 , 2009-Ohio-765, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.) (“[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. | 2 | 2017–2023 |
Polhamus v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2023Polhamus [v. Robinson], 2017-Ohio-39 , 80 N.E.3d 1142 , at ¶ 26 (3rd Dist.), citing In re Brayden James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2007-Ohio-2335 , 866 N.E.2d 467 ; Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 181 Ohio App.3d 167 , 908 N.E.2d 489 , 2009-Ohio-765, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.) (“[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. 2017Polhamus , 2017-Ohio-39 , 80 N.E.3d 1142 , at ¶ 26, citing In re Brayden James , 113 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2007-Ohio-2335 , 866 N.E.2d 467 ; Purvis v. Hazelbaker , 181 Ohio App.3d 167 , 908 N.E.2d 489 , 2009-Ohio-765 , ¶ 10 (4th Dist.) ("[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. | 2 | 2017–2023 |
In Re Kovaleski, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2006)
green
2 sentences2017Washington No. 05CA12, 2006-Ohio-317, ¶ 21 , citing Bragg v. Hatfield, 152 Ohio App.3d 174 , 2003-Ohio-1441 , ¶ 17-19 (4th Dist.) (concluding that the parental-suitability standard applies only in original-custody determinations, not in -11- Case No. 8-16-11 later applications to regain custody of a child after the “parent contracts away rights for his minor child” and that contract is codified in an agreed entry), citing Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d at 68 . 2009In re Kovaleski, Washington App. No. 05CA12, 2006-Ohio-317 , 2006 WL 199549 , ¶21, citing *174 Bragg. | 2 | 2009–2017 |
Masitto v. Masitto
green
2 sentences2014Generally between parents and nonparents, “‘parents who are “suitable” persons have a “paramount” right to the custody of their minor children unless they forfeit that right by contract, abandonment, or by becoming totally unable to care for and support those children.’” Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63, 65 , 488 N.E.2d 857 (1986), quoting Perales at 97 . “[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. 2014Generally between parents and nonparents, “‘parents who are “suitable” persons have a “paramount” right to the custody of their minor children unless they forfeit that right by contract, abandonment, or by becoming totally unable to care for and support those children.’” Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63, 65 , 488 N.E.2d 857 (1986), quoting Perales at 97 . “[O]nce custody has been awarded to a nonparent, the court will not apply the Perales unfitness standard to a later request for custody modification. | 2 | 2014–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.