The wife and husband are the joint natural guardians of their minor children and are equally charged with their care, nurture, welfare, and education and the care and management of their estates. The wife and husband have equal powers, rights, and duties and neither parent has any right paramount to the right of the other concerning the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor or the right to be the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor, the control of the services or the earnings of such minor, or any other matter affecting the minor; provided that if either parent, to the exclusion of the other, is maintaining and supporting the child, that parent shall have the paramount right to control the services and earnings of the child. Neither parent shall forcibly take a child from the guardianship of the parent who is the residential parent and legal custodian of the child.
If the wife and husband live apart, the court may award the guardianship of a minor to either parent, and the state in which the parent who is the residential parent and legal custodian or who otherwise has the lawful custody of the minor resides has jurisdiction to determine questions concerning the minor's guardianship.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2023 · leading case: In re Guardianship of S.H., 2013 Ohio 4380 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
In re Guardianship of S.H., 2013 Ohio 4380 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “08 recognizes a suitable parent’s superior right to the guardianship of his or her children against the rights of a nonparent third party, The wife and husband are the joint natural guardians of their minor children and are equally charged with their care, nurture, welfare, and…”
In Re Est. of Bednarczuk, 609 N.E.2d 1310 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “He cites R.C. 2111.08, which provides in part as follows: “The wife and husband are the joint natural guardians of their minor children and are equally charged with their care, nurture, welfare, and education and the care and management of their estates.”
Nelson v. Nelson, 585 N.E.2d 502 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “Furthermore, it would be unreasonable in all circumstances to permit the parents, either individually or jointly, to absolve themselves of this duty of support by entering into an agreement between themselves to that effect subsequent to a court order.”
Haskins v. Bronzetti, 594 N.E.2d 582 (Ohio 1992). “03 (when a man and woman are married and living separate and apart from each other, or are divorced, questions as to the care of their children are properly before a court of competent jurisdiction and both are equally responsible for the care of their children); former R.C.…”
Boltz v. Boltz, 509 N.E.2d 1274 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “R.C. 2111.08; State v. Ducey, supra; Hacker v.”
In re Guardianship of Elliot, 2010 Ohio 5405 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6דHowever, as this Court has previously held when the person seeking appointment as a guardian is the parent of the ward, R.C. 2111.08 controls over the residency restrictions listed in R.”
Hacker v. Hacker, 448 N.E.2d 831 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). “” The statutes provide a civil mandate in R.C. 2111.08, which states in pertinent part: “The husband and wife are the joint natural guardians of their minor children and are equally charged with their care, nurture, welfare, and education * * *.”
Hundley v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 774 N.E.2d 330 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “See R.C. 2111.08 (stating that a wife and husband are equally charged with caring for their minor children and each other); R.”
Wayne Cnty. Bureau of Support v. Wolfe, 595 N.E.2d 421 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “See R.C. 2111.08 (husband and wife are the joint natural guardians of their minor children and are responsible for their care); R.”
Smith v. Smith, 218 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964). “The parents may, as individuals, contract between themselves as to their obligations of child support (Sections 2111.08, 3103.03 and 3103.06, Revised Code) and determine by their agreement the manner in which their respective obligations might be borne between them.”
Peoples v. Holley, 908 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “He argues that the trial court should not have awarded her damages, because the computer did not belong to her but to her daughter (which daughter is not clear). {¶ 34} Although a parent has no legal or beneficial interest in the property of her child, the parent does have a…”
Bastian v. Bastian, 160 N.E.2d 133 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959). “The legislature of this state has spoken, in §2111.08 R. C., with respect to the fact that the parents are the joint natural guardians of their minor children, and both are equally charged with their care, nurture, welfare and education.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.