An action to determine the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship may not be brought later than five years after the child reaches the age of eighteen. Neither section 3111.04 of the Revised Code nor this section extends the time within which a right of inheritance or a right to a succession may be asserted beyond the time provided by Chapter 2105., 2107., 2113., 2117, or 2123. of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Carnes v. Kemp, 2004-Ohio-7107, 821 N.E.2d 180.
Carnes v. Kemp, 2004-Ohio-7107, 821 N.E.2d 180. · cites it 38ד] Domestic relations – Parentage actions – Child support — R.C. 3111.05 and 3111.13 – Juvenile court has jurisdiction to award child support payments to an adult emancipated child if a parentage action is filed before the child’s 23d birthday.”
Powell v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-526, 185 N.E.3d 595. · cites it 6דThe statute provides: An action to determine the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship may not be brought later than five years after the child reaches the age of eighteen.”
Park v. Ambrose, 619 N.E.2d 469 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1993). · cites it 3דR.C. 3111.05. This suit was brought when [the child] was seven years old.”
Wright v. Oliver, 517 N.E.2d 883 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 2ד1 R.C. 3111.05. This suit was brought when Andrea was seven years old.”
In re J.V., 938 N.E.2d 81 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2010). · cites it 5ד2d 1036 , in which a mother and her 23-year-old daughter brought suit against her alleged father, seeking both to establish paternity pursuant to R.C. 3111.05 and a retroactive child-support award pursuant to R.”
Rees v. Heimberger, 573 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). · cites it 2ד08 is unconstitutional and that R.C. 3111.05 is unconstitutionally vague.”
Ehman v. Harvey, 2023-Ohio-1129, 211 N.E.3d 1276. · cites it 6ד{¶8} After hearing the evidence, the magistrate’s September 28, 2021 recommendation noted that, although the evidence is ”compelling in many ways,” R.C. 3111.05 prohibits bringing this action “later than five years after the child reaches the age of eighteen.”
In re Est. of Hicks, 629 N.E.2d 1086 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1993). · cites it 2ד*485 Appellant has appealed the trial court’s decision, setting forth the following three assignments of error: “I.”
Seegert v. Zietlow, 642 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). “R.C. 3111.05. Because the parents’ duty to support their children generally extends to the child’s eighteenth birthday, see R.”
Hulett v. Hulett, 544 N.E.2d 257 (Ohio 1989). “In Ohio, an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a father and child relationship may be brought until the child attains the age of twenty-three, pursuant to R.C. 3111.05. While this provision protects the child’s right to bring an action in the child’s own name…”
Brookbank v. Gray, 74 Ohio St. 3d 279 (1996). “2d 1310 (paternity may be established by genetic testing irrespective of the limitations period set forth in R.C. 3111.05). On the other hand, in Beck v.”
Kim Carroll v. Eva Hill, 37 F.4th 1119 (6th Cir. 2022). “Arlene’s failure to notify her about her relationship with Albert in the end merely deprived Carroll of the experience of losing a claim in the Ohio courts. Had Arlene told Carroll earlier, it is true, she might have filed a parentage action before she turned 23.”
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.