Any interested party may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship. Insofar as practicable, the provisions of sections 3111.01 to 3111.18 of the Revised Code that are applicable to the father and child relationship shall apply to an action brought under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Baugh v. Carver, 444 N.E.2d 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1981).
Baugh v. Carver, 444 N.E.2d 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1981). · cites it 8דUnder the relevant provisions of R.C. 3111.17, where an individual is found to be the putative father of the child, the court shall order that “* * * a reasonable weekly sum be paid complainant for support and maintenance of the child until he becomes eighteen years of age.”
Edwards v. Sadusky, 448 N.E.2d 506 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6דPursuant to R.C. 3111.17, the juvenile court awarded Edwards a judgment of $240 which reflects a sum of $40 per week for her support and maintenance during the six-week period of her absence from work.”
Schroeder v. Niese, 2016-Ohio-8397, 78 N.E.3d 339. “1 In fact, the appeals court in 1 Both the Myers and the Baugh decisions were handed down under a prior version of R.C. 3111.17 that has since been revised.”
Jelen v. Price, 458 N.E.2d 1267 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1983). · cites it 4ד3111.17, at the time relevant herein, provided in part: “If the accused in a proceeding under sections 3111.”
State v. Brown, 451 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1982). · cites it 2ד24 ], which we find to have been legislatively overruled by R.C. 3111.17 and 2919.21 (A)(4). R.C. 3111.”
Walker v. Stokes, 375 N.E.2d 1258 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1977). · cites it 3דSections 3111.17 and 3111.18 O. R. C. are unconstitutional on their face and/or as applied in the in- *122 slant case since the statutes require that juvenile judges-incarcerate indigent defendants in paternity proceedings for a minimum of three months solely because of their…”
Beck v. Jolliff, 489 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1984). · cites it 2ד) R.C. 3111.17 (1976) read: “If the jury finds him guilty, he shall be adjudged the reputed father of the child * * *.”
Seegert v. Zietlow, 642 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). “15 and its predecessor, former R.C. 3111.17, as requiring child support from the date of the delivery of the child up to the date *461 of the paternity adjudication and until the age of majority.”
Zweifel v. Price, 493 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). · cites it 10ד77254 on behalf of Cassandra; that defendant pled guilty in both cases and on June 1,1966 the court entered an order of support for both children, effective May 19, 1966, pursuant to former R.C. 3111.17; that plaintiff and defendant are not married to each other and have never…”
Frazier v. Daniels, 693 N.E.2d 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1997). “2d 58, 60-61 (interpreting former R.C. 3111.17, the predecessor statute to R.”
In re Est. of Vaughan, 740 N.E.2d 259 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 5דThe primary issue for our consideration is whether a juvenile court admission of paternity pursuant to former R.C. 3111.17 is the equivalent of a probate court *547 legitimation in accordance with former R.”
Nemcek v. Paskey, 849 N.E.2d 108 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 2006). “Any interested party may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother-and-child relationship, R.C. 3111.17. {¶ 10} R.C. 3111.381, as currently enacted, requires that an administrative determination of the existence or nonexistence of a parent-and-child…”
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.