For the purpose of administering child abuse and child neglect prevention programming and services approved by the children's trust fund board, there are hereby created child abuse and child neglect prevention regions. The board, in consultation with the department of children and youth, shall determine the number of regions and the counties within each region. Each county in the state shall be included in a region.
Last updated July 21, 2025 at 12:18 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: McKinney v. McKinney, 756 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001).
McKinney v. McKinney, 756 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001). “So long as the QDRO is consistent with the decree, it does not constitute a modification, which R.C. 3109.171(1) prohibits, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to issue it.”
Maloney v. Maloney, 826 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005). “R.C. 3109.171(A)(4). Therefore, “all income and appreciation on separate property, due to the labor, monetary, or in-kind contribution of either or both of the spouses that occurred during the marriage” is marital property.”
Walker v. Walker, 2013-Ohio-1496. “{¶27} Given the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s determination that Timothy committed financial misconduct was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Kraft v. Kraft, 2014-Ohio-4852. “{¶ 48} “Any ‘[p]assive income and appreciation acquired from separate property by one spouse during the marriage’ is likewise the separate property of that spouse.”
Cosby v. Cosby, 750 N.E.2d 1207 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2001). “Property division is now governed by R.C. 3109.171.”
Keene v. Keene, 2012-Ohio-5213. “R.C. 3109.171(A)(3)(a)(I). The tax refund for the year 2009 that the parties received in 2010 was owned by both of the spouses.”
Turner v. Turner, 2023-Ohio-1298. “R.C. 3109.171(A)(6)(a)(vii). Trial Court’s Order and Judgment Entry {¶ 11} The trial court, in approving the Decision and adopting the magistrate’s findings, set forth, in relevant part: B.”
Majeski v. Majeski, 2012-Ohio-731. “So long as the QDRO is consistent with the decree, it does not constitute a modification, which R.C. 3109.171(I) prohibits, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to issue it.”
Maanu v. Bobie, 2026-Ohio-691. “60(B) motion violates this court's remand instructions in Bobie I and R.C. 3109.171(I). {¶ 26} In Bobie I, this court addressed, among other things, the limitations imposed by R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.171(1): 1 case
McKinney v. McKinney, 756 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001). “So long as the QDRO is consistent with the decree, it does not constitute a modification, which R.C. 3109.171(1) prohibits, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to issue it.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.171(A)(3)(a)(I): 1 case
Keene v. Keene, 2012-Ohio-5213. “R.C. 3109.171(A)(3)(a)(I). The tax refund for the year 2009 that the parties received in 2010 was owned by both of the spouses.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.171(A)(4): 2 cases
Maloney v. Maloney, 826 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005). “R.C. 3109.171(A)(4). Therefore, “all income and appreciation on separate property, due to the labor, monetary, or in-kind contribution of either or both of the spouses that occurred during the marriage” is marital property.”
Kraft v. Kraft, 2014-Ohio-4852. “{¶ 48} “Any ‘[p]assive income and appreciation acquired from separate property by one spouse during the marriage’ is likewise the separate property of that spouse.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.171(A)(6)(a)(vii): 1 case
Turner v. Turner, 2023-Ohio-1298. “R.C. 3109.171(A)(6)(a)(vii). Trial Court’s Order and Judgment Entry {¶ 11} The trial court, in approving the Decision and adopting the magistrate’s findings, set forth, in relevant part: B.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.171(E)(5): 1 case
Walker v. Walker, 2013-Ohio-1496. “{¶27} Given the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s determination that Timothy committed financial misconduct was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.171(I): 2 cases
Majeski v. Majeski, 2012-Ohio-731. “So long as the QDRO is consistent with the decree, it does not constitute a modification, which R.C. 3109.171(I) prohibits, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to issue it.”
Maanu v. Bobie, 2026-Ohio-691. “60(B) motion violates this court's remand instructions in Bobie I and R.C. 3109.171(I). {¶ 26} In Bobie I, this court addressed, among other things, the limitations imposed by R.”
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.