Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3119
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.11 (2026)

Court-ordered child support for a person with a disability regardless of age

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 20, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 338 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Notwithstanding section 3109.01 of the Revised Code, when issuing or modifying a court child support order, a court may provide for the care and maintenance of a child who is a person with a disability and the subject of the order, to be issued or continue after the date the child reaches the age of majority. This section applies regardless of whether the child is younger or older than the age of majority when the court issues or modifies the order. The court shall comply with Chapters 3119., 3121., 3123., and 3125. of the Revised Code when it makes or modifies an order under this section.

Last updated February 24, 2025 at 3:23 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: State, Ex Rel. Williams v. Belpre City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 534 N.E.2d 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State, Ex Rel. Williams v. Belpre City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 534 N.E.2d 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). “2d 703, 704 , the Supreme Court held that a public school teacher under a limited three-year contract did not thereby acquire tenure under R.C. 3119.11, by stating the following: “Relator became eligible for a continuing contract after his second year of employment by the Van…”
Moffett v. Salem City Sch. Dist. Bd., Unpublished Decision (12-19-2003), 2003 Ohio 7007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “11(G)(7) severely limits the subject matter of an appeal to the court of common pleas: { 17} "(7) A teacher may appeal an order affirming the intention of the board not to reemploy the teacher to the court of common pleas of the county * * * on the grounds that the board has not…”
Brown v. Brown, 2025 Ohio 1998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “) Further, R.C. 3119.11 provides: “Notwithstanding section 3109.”
State ex rel. Francu v. Windham Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 496 N.E.2d 902 (Ohio 1986). “receive a written notice of non-renewal by April 30th constitutes a right to continued employment under R.C. 3119.11, nothing in Peake abolished the school board’s defense that a teacher thwarted an attempted notice of non-renewal.”
Galat v. Hamilton Bd. of Educ., Unpublished Decision (10-26-1998) (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “The issue before this court is the interaction between the teacher termination law set forth in R.C. 3119.11, the teacher evaluation law set forth in R.”
Hara v. Montgomery Cty. Jt. Vocational Sch. Dist., 1996 Ohio 131 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 2× “] Schools—Teachers—Supplemental contract for additional duties improperly reduced, when—Term of automatically renewed supplemental contract— Former R.C. 3119.11, construed and applied. (Nos.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.11(G)(7) — 2 cases
Moffett v. Salem City Sch. Dist. Bd., Unpublished Decision (12-19-2003), 2003 Ohio 7007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “11(G)(7) severely limits the subject matter of an appeal to the court of common pleas: { 17} "(7) A teacher may appeal an order affirming the intention of the board not to reemploy the teacher to the court of common pleas of the county * * * on the grounds that the board has not…”
Galat v. Hamilton Bd. of Educ., Unpublished Decision (10-26-1998) (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “The issue before this court is the interaction between the teacher termination law set forth in R.C. 3119.11, the teacher evaluation law set forth in 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.