Notwithstanding section 3109.01 of the Revised Code, both of the following apply:
(A) The duty of support to a child imposed pursuant to a court child support order shall continue beyond the child's eighteenth birthday only under the following circumstances:
(1) Under an order issued or modified pursuant to section 3109.20 or 3119.11 of the Revised Code for a child who is mentally or physically disabled and is incapable of supporting or maintaining oneself.
(2) The child's parents have agreed to continue support beyond the child's eighteenth birthday pursuant to a separation agreement that was incorporated into a decree of divorce or dissolution.
(3) The child continuously attends a recognized and accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child's eighteenth birthday.
(B) The duty of support to a child imposed pursuant to an administrative child support order shall continue beyond the child's eighteenth birthday only if the child continuously attends a recognized and accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child's eighteenth birthday.
Last updated January 21, 2025 at 2:29 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Hess v. Ugorec, 2021-Ohio-189.
Hess v. Ugorec, 2021-Ohio-189. · cites it 10ד{¶17} Here, the trial court found that it “retained jurisdiction over the matter” and pursuant to R.C. 3119.86 and the magistrate’s review of the case, “it was determined that child support would continue due to [S.”
In re Palcisco, 2012-Ohio-6134. · cites it 11ד{¶11} A domestic relations court’s continuing jurisdiction to order child support beyond a child’s eighteenth birthday is set forth in R.C. 3119.86: (A) Notwithstanding section 3109.”
Clay v. Clay, 2022-Ohio-1728, 190 N.E.3d 40. · cites it 11ד) (finding trial court lacked jurisdiction to award custody and order child support for child that had physical and developmental disabilities since birth, reasoning that neither Castle nor R.C. 3119.86 applied where the child was over the age of eighteen at the time of the…”
Brown v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-1998, 270 N.E.3d 1147. · cites it 34דHere, however, appellant argues the trial court erred in its application of R.C. 3119.86 to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to enter a child support order for a Castle child.”
Lorain Cty Child. Servs. v. Gossick, 2014-Ohio-3865. · cites it 3דR.C. 3119.86(A) carves out very limited exceptions to the general rule that child support orders shall terminate upon the child’s eighteenth birthday.”
In re R.B., 2013-Ohio-2392. · cites it 3דshould be continued pursuant to R.C. 3119.86. R.C. 3119.86 permits child support to continue past the child's 19th birthday if the child is "mentally or physically disabled and is incapable of supporting or maintaining himself or herself.”
C.S. v. R.S., 2021-Ohio-3581, 179 N.E.3d 222. · cites it 3ד), paragraph two of the syllabus ("domestic relations court retains jurisdiction over parties in a divorce, dissolution or separation proceeding to continue or to modify support payments for a mentally or physically disabled child, who was so disabled before he or she attained…”
Ravenstein v. Ravenstein, 167 So. 3d 210 (Miss. 2014). “2d 259 (1968)); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3119.86 (A)(1)(a) (codifying Castle v.”
Brilla v. Mulhearn, 859 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2006). “Subsequently, CSEA recommended, pursuant to R.C. 3119.86, that child support for John was to terminate on June 5, 2005.”
Hays v. Alexander, 114 So. 3d 704 (Miss. 2013). “2(6); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3119.86(A)(1); Okla.”
Baker v. Baker, 2013-Ohio-1816, 991 N.E.2d 717. “The holding in Castle has been codified in R.C. 3119.86(A)(1)(a). {¶ 27} In arguing that Brian should be emancipated, Daniel focuses on the fact that the child involved in Castle had “a mental age of five years, is attending a special school on a full-time basis and will never…”
Gatchel v. Gatchel, 824 N.E.2d 576 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2005). “Therefore, we determine that an approved home-education program becomes the legal equivalent of attending a public, private, or parochial school for purposes of a child-support obligation under R.C. 3119.86. {¶ 20} Accordingly, since Nathan’s home-education program operates…”
In re Palcisco, 2012-Ohio-6134. “{¶11} A domestic relations court’s continuing jurisdiction to order child support beyond a child’s eighteenth birthday is set forth in R.C. 3119.86: (A) Notwithstanding section 3109.”
Lorain Cty Child. Servs. v. Gossick, 2014-Ohio-3865. “R.C. 3119.86(A) carves out very limited exceptions to the general rule that child support orders shall terminate upon the child’s eighteenth birthday.”
Clay v. Clay, 2022-Ohio-1728, 190 N.E.3d 40. “) (finding trial court lacked jurisdiction to award custody and order child support for child that had physical and developmental disabilities since birth, reasoning that neither Castle nor R.C. 3119.86 applied where the child was over the age of eighteen at the time of the…”
Hess v. Ugorec, 2021-Ohio-189. “{¶17} Here, the trial court found that it “retained jurisdiction over the matter” and pursuant to R.C. 3119.86 and the magistrate’s review of the case, “it was determined that child support would continue due to [S.”
Hays v. Alexander, 114 So. 3d 704 (Miss. 2013). “2(6); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3119.86(A)(1); Okla.”
Brown v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-1998, 270 N.E.3d 1147. “Here, however, appellant argues the trial court erred in its application of R.C. 3119.86 to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to enter a child support order for a Castle child.”
Hess v. Ugorec, 2021-Ohio-189. “{¶17} Here, the trial court found that it “retained jurisdiction over the matter” and pursuant to R.C. 3119.86 and the magistrate’s review of the case, “it was determined that child support would continue due to [S.”
Baker v. Baker, 2013-Ohio-1816, 991 N.E.2d 717. “The holding in Castle has been codified in R.C. 3119.86(A)(1)(a). {¶ 27} In arguing that Brian should be emancipated, Daniel focuses on the fact that the child involved in Castle had “a mental age of five years, is attending a special school on a full-time basis and will never…”
Lorain Cty Child. Servs. v. Gossick, 2014-Ohio-3865. “R.C. 3119.86(A) carves out very limited exceptions to the general rule that child support orders shall terminate upon the child’s eighteenth birthday.”
Clay v. Clay, 2022-Ohio-1728, 190 N.E.3d 40. “) (finding trial court lacked jurisdiction to award custody and order child support for child that had physical and developmental disabilities since birth, reasoning that neither Castle nor R.C. 3119.86 applied where the child was over the age of eighteen at the time of the…”
In re R.B., 2013-Ohio-2392. “should be continued pursuant to R.C. 3119.86. R.C. 3119.86 permits child support to continue past the child's 19th birthday if the child is "mentally or physically disabled and is incapable of supporting or maintaining himself or herself.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.86(A)(1)(b): 3 cases
Hess v. Ugorec, 2021-Ohio-189. “{¶17} Here, the trial court found that it “retained jurisdiction over the matter” and pursuant to R.C. 3119.86 and the magistrate’s review of the case, “it was determined that child support would continue due to [S.”
Risser v. Risser, 878 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2007).
Hess v. Ugorec, 2021-Ohio-189. “{¶17} Here, the trial court found that it “retained jurisdiction over the matter” and pursuant to R.C. 3119.86 and the magistrate’s review of the case, “it was determined that child support would continue due to [S.”
Lorain Cty Child. Servs. v. Gossick, 2014-Ohio-3865. “R.C. 3119.86(A) carves out very limited exceptions to the general rule that child support orders shall terminate upon the child’s eighteenth birthday.”
In re Palcisco, 2012-Ohio-6134. “{¶11} A domestic relations court’s continuing jurisdiction to order child support beyond a child’s eighteenth birthday is set forth in R.C. 3119.86: (A) Notwithstanding section 3109.”
Clay v. Clay, 2022-Ohio-1728, 190 N.E.3d 40. “) (finding trial court lacked jurisdiction to award custody and order child support for child that had physical and developmental disabilities since birth, reasoning that neither Castle nor R.C. 3119.86 applied where the child was over the age of eighteen at the time of the…”
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.