If either the father or mother of an unmarried minor child is deceased, the court of common pleas of the county in which the minor child resides may grant the parents and other relatives of the deceased father or mother reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to the minor child during the child's minority if the parent or other relative files a complaint requesting reasonable companionship or visitation rights and if the court determines that the granting of the companionship or visitation rights is in the best interest of the minor child. In determining whether to grant any person reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to any child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors set forth in division (D) of section 3109.051 of the Revised Code. Divisions (C), (K), and (L) of section 3109.051 of the Revised Code apply to the determination of reasonable companionship or visitation rights under this section and to any order granting any such rights that is issued under this section.
The remarriage of the surviving parent of the child or the adoption of the child by the spouse of the surviving parent of the child does not affect the authority of the court under this section to grant reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to the child to a parent or other relative of the child's deceased father or mother.
If the court denies a request for reasonable companionship or visitation rights made pursuant to this section and the complainant files a written request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court shall state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Civil Rule 52.
Except as provided in division (E)(6) of section 3113.31 of the Revised Code, if the court, pursuant to this section, grants any person companionship or visitation rights with respect to any child, it shall not require the public children services agency to provide supervision of or other services related to that person's exercise of companionship or visitation rights with respect to the child. This section does not limit the power of a juvenile court pursuant to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code to issue orders with respect to children who are alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent children or to make dispositions of children who are adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent children or of a common pleas court to issue orders pursuant to section 3113.31 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 92
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Harrold v. Collier, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio 2005).
Harrold v. Collier, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 8ד12, unconstitutionally infringe on a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child. We disagree.”
In re C.W., 2018 Ohio 5265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 14ד11 permits grandparents to pursue visitation rights when a parent is deceased, providing in relevant part: If either the father or mother of an unmarried minor child is deceased, the court of common pleas of the county in which the minor child resides may grant the parents and…”
In re J.L.M., 2018 Ohio 2175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8ד051(D) factors include: (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,…”
State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 2024 Ohio 135 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 16ד] Prohibition—General division of common pleas court has jurisdiction over appellant’s former mother-in-law’s complaint seeking companionship and visitation with appellant’s child under R.C. 3109.11—Appellant has adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by appeal to challenge…”
In re K.P.R., 966 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8ד” {¶ 14} In this assignment of error, the father argues that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction over a case filed under the nonparent-visitation statute of R.C. 3109.11 and because the stepfather originally requested custody, jurisdiction did not extend to issues of…”
In re R.V., 941 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 23ד{¶ 4} The Clark County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Juvenile Section, granted visitation rights to Gates, pursuant to R.C. 3109.11. {¶ 5} The trial court found that Gates was entitled to visitation rights with his grandchildren, since he is the father of R.”
Badescu v. Badescu, 2020 Ohio 4312 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6ד051(C) provides in determining to grant parenting time rights, a trial court shall consider a mediation report that is filed pursuant to R.C. 3109.11 or 3109.12 and shall consider all other relevant factors, including the factors listed in R.”
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2016 Ohio 5900 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3דFurthermore, the Tenth District and, subsequently, the Supreme Court have upheld the constitutionality of R.”
In Re Thornton, 493 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 14דAfter a hearing on July 7, 1983, a referee dismissed the action on the premise that appellees’ rights to visit pursuant to R.C. 3109.11 were divested by the stepmother’s adoption of Joseph.”
In re K.M.-B., 2015 Ohio 4626 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6ד(hereinafter the “grandmother”), petitioned the court on July 23, 2014, to establish non-parent visitation with her grandchildren pursuant to R.C. 3109.11 or 3109.12. G. is the maternal 2.”
State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 2023 Ohio 1536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7דJones in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas by proceeding upon the complaint for grandparent companionship rights pursuant to R.C. 3109.11 that was filed by plaintiff, Heidi O’Neill (“Mrs.”
Wentz v. Wideman, 2021 Ohio 2257 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 9דThe applicable grandparent-visitation statute – R.C. 3109.11 – is unconstitutional as applied to this case.”
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.