Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3111
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13 (2026)

Judgment or order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 22, 2001
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 180 - 123rd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) The judgment or order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of the parent and child relationship is determinative for all purposes.

(B) If the judgment or order of the court is at variance with the child's birth record, the court may order that a new birth record be issued under section 3111.18 of the Revised Code.

(C) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the judgment or order may contain, at the request of a party and if not prohibited under federal law, any other provision directed against the appropriate party to the proceeding, concerning the duty of support, the payment of all or any part of the reasonable expenses of the mother's pregnancy and confinement, the furnishing of bond or other security for the payment of the judgment, or any other matter in the best interest of the child. After entry of the judgment or order, the father may petition that he be designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the child or for parenting time rights in a proceeding separate from any action to establish paternity. Additionally, if the mother is unmarried, the father may file a complaint requesting the granting of reasonable parenting time rights, and the parents of the father, any relative of the father, the parents of the mother, and any relative of the mother may file a complaint requesting the granting of reasonable companionship or visitation rights, with the child pursuant to section 3109.12 of the Revised Code.

The judgment or order shall contain any provision required by section 3111.14 of the Revised Code.

(D) Support judgments or orders ordinarily shall be for periodic payments that may vary in amount. In the best interest of the child, the purchase of an annuity may be ordered in lieu of periodic payments of support if the purchase agreement provides that any remaining principal will be transferred to the ownership and control of the child on the child's attainment of the age of majority.

(E) In determining the amount to be paid by a parent for support of the child and the period during which the duty of support is owed, a court enforcing the obligation of support shall comply with Chapters 3119., 3121., 3123., and 3125. of the Revised Code.

(F)(1) Any court 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.

(2) When a court determines whether to require a parent to pay an amount for that parent's failure to support a child prior to the date the court issues an order requiring that parent to pay an amount for the current support of that child, it shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, any monetary contribution either parent of the child made to the support of the child prior to the court issuing the order requiring the parent to pay an amount for the current support of the child.

(3)(a) A court shall not require a parent to pay an amount for that parent's failure to support a child prior to the date the court issues an order requiring that parent to pay an amount for the current support of that child or to pay all or any part of the reasonable expenses of the mother's pregnancy and confinement, if both of the following apply:

(i) At the time of the initial filing of an action to determine the existence of the parent and child relationship with respect to that parent, the child was over three years of age.

(ii) Prior to the initial filing of an action to determine the existence of the parent and child relationship with respect to that parent, the alleged father had no knowledge and had no reason to have knowledge of his alleged paternity of the child.

(b) For purposes of division (F)(4)(a)(ii) of this section, the mother of the child may establish that the alleged father had or should have had knowledge of the paternity of the child by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she performed a reasonable and documented effort to contact and notify the alleged father of his paternity of the child.

(c) A party is entitled to obtain modification of an existing order for arrearages under this division regardless of whether the judgment, court order, or administrative support order from which relief is sought was issued prior to, on, or after October 27, 2000.

(G) As used in this section, "birth record" has the same meaning as in section 3705.01 of the Revised Code.

(H) Unless the court has reason to believe that a person named in the order is a potential victim of domestic violence, any order issued pursuant to this section finding the existence of a parent and child relationship shall contain the full names, addresses, and social security numbers of the mother and father of the child and the full name and address of the child.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Carnes v. Kemp, 2004 Ohio 7107 (Ohio 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carnes v. Kemp, 2004 Ohio 7107 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 16× “05 is read in conjunction with R.C. 3111.13, it becomes clear that the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to award retroactive support in a paternity action brought after the emancipation of the child but prior to the child’s 23d birthday.”
Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St. 3d 285 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 18× “{¶ 4} Matthew filed a motion to extinguish the arrearage pursuant to amended R.C. 3111.13. In response, Shirley filed a complaint for declaratory relief, requesting the trial court to determine that R.”
Cuyahoga Support Enf't Agency v. Guthrie, 705 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 8× “19 of the Revised Code to provide for future education and support and a judgment or order issued with respect to matters listed in divisions (C) and (D) of section 3111.13 and division (B) of section 3111.”
Bobo v. Jewell, 528 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 5× “It is axiomatic that once the parent-child relationship has been established, this fact has a profound impact upon the relationship of the child with both parents.”
Pegan v. Crawmer, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 6× “15-90-14, unreported, 1991 WL 53747 (R.C. 3111.13[C] “does not mandate a separate proceeding [to determine visitation].”
Schroeder v. Niese, 2016 Ohio 8397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Courts have nonetheless used the Baugh decision to evaluate child support determinations made under R.C. 3111.13. See Evans v. Richardson, 10th Dist.”
Kreitzer v. Anderson, 811 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “This testimony was undisputed at the hearing, and Kenneth has not purported to dispute this testimony in his brief to this court. Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Kenneth knew that Kristin was his child from the time of her birth.”
Seegert v. Zietlow, 642 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “R.C. 3111.13 provides, in pertinent part 1 : “(A) The judgment or order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of the parent and child relationship is determinative for all purposes.”
Feldmiller v. Feldmiller, 2012 Ohio 4621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “{¶ 50} R.C. 3111.13(D), which is part of the parentage chapter, provides that support orders “ordinarily shall be for periodic payments that may vary in amount,” but also authorizes the court to order the “purchase of an annuity (that) may be ordered in lieu of periodic payments.”
In re S.K.L., 2016 Ohio 2826 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “18; (2) a judgment or order issued with respect to divisions (C) and (D) of R.C. 3111.13 (support and parenting time) and division (B) of R.”
Nwabara v. Willacy, 733 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 7× “R.C. 3111.13 provides what may be included in a *138 judgment in an action brought for the purpose of determining the existence or nonexistence of a parent child relationship.”
Park v. Ambrose, 619 N.E.2d 469 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “After such relationship is established, R.C. 3111.13 permits a trial court to make a support order and R.”
Show all 113 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(A) — 14 cases
In re Application for Corr. of Birth Record of Adelaide, 2024 Ohio 5393 (Ohio 2024).
State ex rel. Richland Cty. Child. Servs. v. Richland Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 9160 (Ohio 2017).
In Re Adoption of Taylor, 573 N.E.2d 156 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
In re Adoption of Sunderhaus, 585 N.E.2d 418 (Ohio 1992).
Seegert v. Zietlow, 642 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “R.C. 3111.13 provides, in pertinent part 1 : “(A) The judgment or order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of the parent and child relationship is determinative for all purposes.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(B) — 1 case
Bobo v. Jewell, 528 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1988). “It is axiomatic that once the parent-child relationship has been established, this fact has a profound impact upon the relationship of the child with both parents.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(C) — 59 cases
Carnes v. Kemp, 2004 Ohio 7107 (Ohio 2004). “05 is read in conjunction with R.C. 3111.13, it becomes clear that the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to award retroactive support in a paternity action brought after the emancipation of the child but prior to the child’s 23d birthday.”
Pegan v. Crawmer, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1996). “15-90-14, unreported, 1991 WL 53747 (R.C. 3111.13[C] “does not mandate a separate proceeding [to determine visitation].”
Bobo v. Jewell, 528 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1988). “It is axiomatic that once the parent-child relationship has been established, this fact has a profound impact upon the relationship of the child with both parents.”
Payne v. Cartee, 676 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
Singer v. Dickinson, 588 N.E.2d 806 (Ohio 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(D) — 3 cases
Feldmiller v. Feldmiller, 2012 Ohio 4621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶ 50} R.C. 3111.13(D), which is part of the parentage chapter, provides that support orders “ordinarily shall be for periodic payments that may vary in amount,” but also authorizes the court to order the “purchase of an annuity (that) may be ordered in lieu of periodic payments.”
Moore v. Moore, 884 N.E.2d 1113 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
Frazier v. Daniels, 693 N.E.2d 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(E) — 10 cases
Carnes v. Kemp, 2004 Ohio 7107 (Ohio 2004). “05 is read in conjunction with R.C. 3111.13, it becomes clear that the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to award retroactive support in a paternity action brought after the emancipation of the child but prior to the child’s 23d birthday.”
Dunson v. Aldrich, 561 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
McNeal v. Cofield, 603 N.E.2d 436 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Nwabara v. Willacy, 733 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “R.C. 3111.13 provides what may be included in a *138 judgment in an action brought for the purpose of determining the existence or nonexistence of a parent child relationship.”
Ransome v. Lampman, 658 N.E.2d 313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F) — 10 cases
Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St. 3d 285 (Ohio 2006). “{¶ 4} Matthew filed a motion to extinguish the arrearage pursuant to amended R.C. 3111.13. In response, Shirley filed a complaint for declaratory relief, requesting the trial court to determine that R.”
Dixon v. Walcutt, 787 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
White v. Davia, 2012 Ohio 2820 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Miller v. Barker, 582 N.E.2d 647 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
McQueen v. Hawkins, 578 N.E.2d 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(2) — 11 cases
Schroeder v. Niese, 2016 Ohio 8397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Courts have nonetheless used the Baugh decision to evaluate child support determinations made under R.C. 3111.13. See Evans v. Richardson, 10th Dist.”
In Re Sullivan, 855 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).
White v. Davia, 2012 Ohio 2820 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Fraelich v. Parrish, 2016 Ohio 445 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
In re B.A.K., 2022 Ohio 1443 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3) — 6 cases
Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St. 3d 285 (Ohio 2006). “{¶ 4} Matthew filed a motion to extinguish the arrearage pursuant to amended R.C. 3111.13. In response, Shirley filed a complaint for declaratory relief, requesting the trial court to determine that R.”
Kreitzer v. Anderson, 811 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “This testimony was undisputed at the hearing, and Kenneth has not purported to dispute this testimony in his brief to this court. Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Kenneth knew that Kristin was his child from the time of her birth.”
Frazier v. Daniels, 693 N.E.2d 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Smith v. Smith, 813 N.E.2d 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
Dixon v. Walcutt, 787 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3)(a) — 5 cases
Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St. 3d 285 (Ohio 2006). “{¶ 4} Matthew filed a motion to extinguish the arrearage pursuant to amended R.C. 3111.13. In response, Shirley filed a complaint for declaratory relief, requesting the trial court to determine that R.”
Kreitzer v. Anderson, 811 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “This testimony was undisputed at the hearing, and Kenneth has not purported to dispute this testimony in his brief to this court. Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Kenneth knew that Kristin was his child from the time of her birth.”
Dixon v. Walcutt, 787 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Smith v. Smith, 813 N.E.2d 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
Slaughter v. Hoover-Grier, 2017 Ohio 2770 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3)(a)(i) — 1 case
Smith v. Smith, 813 N.E.2d 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Kreitzer v. Anderson, 811 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “This testimony was undisputed at the hearing, and Kenneth has not purported to dispute this testimony in his brief to this court. Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Kenneth knew that Kristin was his child from the time of her birth.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3)(b) — 1 case
Kreitzer v. Anderson, 811 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “This testimony was undisputed at the hearing, and Kenneth has not purported to dispute this testimony in his brief to this court. Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Kenneth knew that Kristin was his child from the time of her birth.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3)(c) — 3 cases
Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St. 3d 285 (Ohio 2006). “{¶ 4} Matthew filed a motion to extinguish the arrearage pursuant to amended R.C. 3111.13. In response, Shirley filed a complaint for declaratory relief, requesting the trial court to determine that R.”
Dixon v. Walcutt, 787 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Smith v. Smith, 813 N.E.2d 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3)(i) — 1 case
Brosky v. Krebs, 2018 Ohio 5261 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.13(F)(3)(ii) — 1 case
Brosky v. Krebs, 2018 Ohio 5261 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
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.