(A) The natural mother, each man presumed to be the father under section 3111.03 of the Revised Code, each man alleged to be the natural father, and a caretaker of a child shall be made parties to the action brought pursuant to sections 3111.01 to 3111.18 of the Revised Code or, if not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, shall be given notice of the action pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The child support enforcement agency of the county in which the action is brought also shall be given notice of the action pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The court may align the parties. The child shall be made a party to the action unless a party shows good cause for not doing so. Separate counsel shall be appointed for the child if the court finds that the child's interests conflict with those of the mother.
If the person bringing the action knows that a particular man is not or, based upon the facts and circumstances present, could not be the natural father of the child, the person bringing the action shall not allege in the action that the man is the natural father of the child and shall not make the man a party to the action.
(B) If an action is brought pursuant to sections 3111.01 to 3111.18 of the Revised Code and the child to whom the action pertains is or was being provided support by a caretaker, the department of job and family services, a county department of job and family services, or another public agency, the caretaker, department, county department, or agency may intervene for purposes of collecting or recovering the support.
Last updated April 3, 2024 at 4:05 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Nelson v. Pleasant, 597 N.E.2d 1137 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
Nelson v. Pleasant, 597 N.E.2d 1137 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3ד3 While the entry does not specify the purpose of these payments, the document explicitly states that it was executed under authority of R.C. 3111.07. 4 The agreed entry then goes on to state the following: “The Plaintiff having accepted the aforementioned payment by the…”
State Ex Rel. Donovan v. Zajac, 708 N.E.2d 254 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5דR.C. 3111.07 provides that when the obligee parent has received public assistance, the child support enforcement agency of the county in which the child resides must be made a party to the action.”
Carnes v. Kemp, 2004 Ohio 7107 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 2דNot only is such a result counterproductive to engendering a strong family atmosphere, but it also pits family members against each other in a fight over cash, which also may include governmental agencies in certain instances pursuant to R.C. 3111.07. As highlighted by the…”
Nwabara v. Willacy, 733 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4דSee R.C. 3111.07(A). This belief is premised on an application of R.”
Kreitzer v. Anderson, 811 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3דIn addition, R.C. 3111.07 states that “[i]f the person bringing the action knows that a particular man is not or, based upon the facts and circumstances present, could not be the natural father of the child, the person bringing the action * * * shall not make the man a party to…”
Still v. Hayman, Unpublished Decision (7-30-2003), 794 N.E.2d 751 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2ד{¶ 30} R.C. 3111.07(A) states that the “child shall be made a party to the action unless a party shows good cause for not doing so.”
Rees v. Heimberger, 573 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3דAssistance and counsel, of the state or state’s prosecuting attorney, to complainants, as provided in O.R.C. 3111.07 or other statutes applicable to these proceedings, carry or invoke the full power, resources, and immunities of state; however, aforesaid power of state also…”
State ex rel. Doe v. Capper, 2012 Ohio 2686 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 6ד2010-JUV-0536, the child was not named as a party, and the plaintiff in the underlying case did not show good cause why the child should not be named or attempt to amend the complaint, pursuant to R.C. 3111.07(A). Therefore, in personam jurisdiction over the child and Relators…”
Gray v. Engesser (In Re Gray), 41 B.R. 759 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 5דOn July 19, 1979, a Judgment Entry was filed in both pending paternity actions, ordering Gray and Engesser to perform all promises made in the Compromise Agreement and finding that the Agreement complied with O.”
State Ex Rel. Athens Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Wolf, 603 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5ד04 must be read in pari materia with R.C. 3111.07. Appellant maintains that the General Assembly, through recent revisions in the Revised Code, intends to make the state a party to all actions involving child support.”
In Re Adoption of Reams, 557 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2דSee R.C. 3111.07(A). Mr. Reams acknowledged paternity and was granted custody of Tessa pursuant to a court order filed August 1, 1986.”
Cuyahoga Cnty. Support Enf't Agency v. Lozada, 657 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2דAdditionally, R.C. 3111.07 clearly allows the CSEA to be a party where the support of the child has been assumed by the state.”
Nwabara v. Willacy, 733 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “See R.C. 3111.07(A). This belief is premised on an application of R.”
Still v. Hayman, Unpublished Decision (7-30-2003), 794 N.E.2d 751 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “{¶ 30} R.C. 3111.07(A) states that the “child shall be made a party to the action unless a party shows good cause for not doing so.”
State ex rel. Doe v. Capper, 2012 Ohio 2686 (Ohio 2012). “2010-JUV-0536, the child was not named as a party, and the plaintiff in the underlying case did not show good cause why the child should not be named or attempt to amend the complaint, pursuant to R.C. 3111.07(A). Therefore, in personam jurisdiction over the child and Relators…”
In Re Adoption of Reams, 557 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “See R.C. 3111.07(A). Mr. Reams acknowledged paternity and was granted custody of Tessa pursuant to a court order filed August 1, 1986.”
State Ex Rel. Donovan v. Zajac, 708 N.E.2d 254 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “R.C. 3111.07 provides that when the obligee parent has received public assistance, the child support enforcement agency of the county in which the child resides must be made a party to the action.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.07(B) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Donovan v. Zajac, 708 N.E.2d 254 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “R.C. 3111.07 provides that when the obligee parent has received public assistance, the child support enforcement agency of the county in which the child resides must be made a party to the action.”
Rees v. Heimberger, 573 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “Assistance and counsel, of the state or state’s prosecuting attorney, to complainants, as provided in O.R.C. 3111.07 or other statutes applicable to these proceedings, carry or invoke the full power, resources, and immunities of state; however, aforesaid power of state also…”
State Ex Rel. Athens Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Wolf, 603 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “04 must be read in pari materia with R.C. 3111.07. Appellant maintains that the General Assembly, through recent revisions in the Revised Code, intends to make the state a party to all actions involving child support.”
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.