(A) Upon satisfactory proof of the causes in the complaint for divorce, annulment, or legal separation, the court of common pleas shall make an order for the disposition, care, and maintenance of the children of the marriage, as is in their best interests, and in accordance with section 3109.04 of the Revised Code.
(B) Upon the failure of proof of the causes in the complaint, the court may make the order for the disposition, care, and maintenance of any dependent child of the marriage as is in the child's best interest, and in accordance with section 3109.04 of the Revised Code.
(C) Any court of common pleas that makes or modifies an order for child support under this section shall comply with Chapters 3119., 3121., 3123., and 3125. of the Revised Code. If any person required to pay child support under an order made under this section on or after April 15, 1985, or modified on or after December 1, 1986, is found in contempt of court for failure to make support payments under the order, the court that makes the finding, in addition to any other penalty or remedy imposed, shall assess all court costs arising out of the contempt proceeding against the person and require the person to pay any reasonable attorney's fees of any adverse party, as determined by the court, that arose in relation to the act of contempt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Easterday v. Zieba, 569 N.E.2d 1028 (Ohio 1991).
State ex rel. Easterday v. Zieba, 569 N.E.2d 1028 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 26ד2d 765 , however, we consulted two other statutes—R.C. 3105.21 and 2151.23 —to decide if a domestic relations court has authority to certify a custody case after dismissing a divorce action and if a juvenile court has authority to accept the case so certified.”
Miller v. Miller, 523 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 2דMy second point concerns R.C. 3105.21(A). I recognize there has been nothing previously announced on this point which could have guided the trial judge in this case.”
Lilly v. Lilly, 499 N.E.2d 21 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 10דOn April 2, 1985, the trial court filed its dismissal entry which provided for custody and child support pursuant to R.C. 3105.21 as stated above and further set forth visitation rights of the husband and held him responsible for “extraordinary medical, dental and optical…”
State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 656 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 2דR.C. 3105.21(B) vests a domestic relations court with jurisdiction to determine custody issues even though a divorce action is dismissed due to a failure to prosecute.”
In Re Whaley, 620 N.E.2d 954 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4דThe Ohio Supreme Court held that because jurisdiction of the common pleas court after a dismissal of a divorce case is governed by R.C. 3105.21(B), 6 and because that statute requires all child custody matters to proceed “in accordance with R.”
Miller v. Miller, 2020 Ohio 6914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5ד] The trial court erred in failing to sustain the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate's decision denying the plaintiff/appellant attorney fees for the defendant/appellee's contempt of court for failure to abide by the trial court's prior orders, or to allow any evidence on…”
Braatz v. Braatz, 706 N.E.2d 1218 (Ohio 1999). “In R.C. 3105.21, the General Assembly states that an order for the “disposition, care, and maintenance of the children” shall be made in the best interest of the child and in accordance with R.”
Parzynski v. Parzynski, 620 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2דSee R.C. 3105.21. 1 Accordingly, appellant’s seventh assignment of error is found not well taken.”
In Re Yeauger, 615 N.E.2d 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2ד” Since we determined that the court’s finding of contempt was improper in this case, we also vacate the court’s award to appellee of costs and attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 3105.21(C). Although, as appellant notes, the court could have awarded costs and fees to be paid by…”
Hardesty v. Hardesty, 474 N.E.2d 368 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2ד” Pursuant to R.C. 3105.21 and 3109.04(A), the court of common pleas, division of domestic relations, has ancillary custody jurisdiction in a divorce case.”
Nelson v. Nelson, 460 N.E.2d 653 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2דR.C. 3105.21(A) states that: “Upon satisfactory proof of the causes in the complaint for divorce, annulment, or alimony, the court of common pleas shall make an order for the disposition, care, and maintenance of the children of the marriage, as is in their best interests, and…”
Pruitt v. Pruitt, 2022 Ohio 2058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “]” R.C. 3105.21(A); see also R.C. 3109.04(A).”
Miller v. Miller, 523 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 1988). “My second point concerns R.C. 3105.21(A). I recognize there has been nothing previously announced on this point which could have guided the trial judge in this case.”
Nelson v. Nelson, 460 N.E.2d 653 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). “R.C. 3105.21(A) states that: “Upon satisfactory proof of the causes in the complaint for divorce, annulment, or alimony, the court of common pleas shall make an order for the disposition, care, and maintenance of the children of the marriage, as is in their best interests, and…”
Pruitt v. Pruitt, 2022 Ohio 2058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “]” R.C. 3105.21(A); see also R.C. 3109.04(A).”
State ex rel. Easterday v. Zieba, 569 N.E.2d 1028 (Ohio 1991). “2d 765 , however, we consulted two other statutes—R.C. 3105.21 and 2151.23 —to decide if a domestic relations court has authority to certify a custody case after dismissing a divorce action and if a juvenile court has authority to accept the case so certified.”
State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 656 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 1995). “R.C. 3105.21(B) vests a domestic relations court with jurisdiction to determine custody issues even though a divorce action is dismissed due to a failure to prosecute.”
In Re Whaley, 620 N.E.2d 954 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “The Ohio Supreme Court held that because jurisdiction of the common pleas court after a dismissal of a divorce case is governed by R.C. 3105.21(B), 6 and because that statute requires all child custody matters to proceed “in accordance with R.”
Lilly v. Lilly, 499 N.E.2d 21 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). “On April 2, 1985, the trial court filed its dismissal entry which provided for custody and child support pursuant to R.C. 3105.21 as stated above and further set forth visitation rights of the husband and held him responsible for “extraordinary medical, dental and optical…”
Miller v. Miller, 2020 Ohio 6914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “] The trial court erred in failing to sustain the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate's decision denying the plaintiff/appellant attorney fees for the defendant/appellee's contempt of court for failure to abide by the trial court's prior orders, or to allow any evidence on…”
In Re Yeauger, 615 N.E.2d 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “” Since we determined that the court’s finding of contempt was improper in this case, we also vacate the court’s award to appellee of costs and attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 3105.21(C). Although, as appellant notes, the court could have awarded costs and fees to be paid by…”
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.