Tag Archives: ohio residental parent
It is one of the most common myths that people maintain when it comes to child custody: Once a child reaches a certain age, that child can choose which parent to live with, right? Well, that is actually incorrect. However, this myth is based in history and actually grounded is truth. Under former Ohio law, once a child attained the age of 12 years old, that child had the power to choose which parent was to be deemed the residential parent and legal custodian of that child. However, under current Ohio law, minor children no longer have the ability to choose which parent they want to live with on a permanent basis. In other words, when the Court issues its final divorce decree which, among other things, allocates parental rights and responsibilities, it is not the child that determines which parent is to be the residential parent, even if that child is a teenager. Ohio law treats a 14 year old in the same manner as a 4 year old when it comes to determining which parent with be designated as the residential parent. And, like almost all issues involving minor children, the determination is guided by what is in the “best interest of the child”.
So, divorcing parents, remember that your child will not be choosing for or against you when it comes to custody issues. Rather, the Court will decide and you need to focus your energy on convincing the Court that it would be in the best interest of the child to live with you … do not work on convincing the child that he or she should choose you. Which, in truth, is not fair to the child anyway.
Gay and lesbian couples are often concerned that their “non-traditional family” will be a disadvantage in custody decisions. While technically this issue is never to be determinative of custody disputes, lest the Court violate the Equal Protection Clause, many gay and lesbian couples feel that their sexual orientation played a role in the ultimate disposition of the Court. Putting aside potential biases of certain judges, there is at least one case that seems to lend credence to those concerns. In 2008, the Second Appellant District in Clark County decided a case by the name of Page v. Page in which the Court specifically stated that a homosexual relationship of a mother caused adverse affects to the minor children and warranted a change of custody from that mother to the father. The facts of that case can be summarized as follows:
Four years after the mother was designated the residential parent of both children, the father filed a motion to modify the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. The common pleas trial Court granted the father’s motion and awarded him custody. The appellate court held that the common pleas court did not err in finding that a change of circumstances occurred as there was evidence that, as a collateral result of the mother’s relationship with her same-sex partner, both children had experienced personality disorders, and therefore, modification of custody was in the children’s best interest. The court determined that the adverse collateral effects of the mother’s relationship with her partner and the partner’s role in the children’s lives showed little room for improvement in the future.
While the Court was careful to say that it was not basing its decision on the simple fact that the mother was a lesbian, but rather the collateral affects that her relationship had on the children, it should give pause to the gay and lesbian couples fighting for custody. This is something to keep an eye on in the future as more and more gay and lesbian couples fight for custody of one of the partner’s minor children.
Content brought to you by the law firm of Morrison & Nicholson
In the first installment of what is planned to be a series on dividing retirement / pension benefits during a divorce settlement, we look briefly at the common questions of dividing retirement and pension plans between spouses. The parties’ retirement benefits is an important consideration when equitably dividing marital property, because, like the marital residence, retirement benefits are often the largest asset or assets of the parties. Therefore, dividing these plans or funds becomes enormously important. So, let’s now address some common questions.
Is my retirement / pension considered marital property?
As the intro gave away: yes. Just as with any other asset of value that is acquired during the marriage, generally, retirement benefits accrued during the marriage are considered to be “marital assets” and must be divided equally between the parties. If a spouse is working during the marriage and this results in the accrual of retirement benefits, the law sees it as if the non-working spouse contributed equally to the creation of those benefits.
This frequently makes it difficult for a court to carry out its statutory mandate of dividing all marital property equally. Technically, the non-working spouse is entitled to at least a portion of the employed-spouse’s pension fund (as marital property), but the money may not be easily accessible at the time of divorce. Because courts like to maximize the value of all retirement and pension funds, it is normally preferable to avoid causing the withdrawal of the accrued monies, and leave the fund growing in the name of the working spouse. Fees, penalties and taxes can often destroy a pension that is withdrawn when it is not fully matured. But, the problem is that sometimes there simply isn’t other marital property to award to the other (non-earning) spouse at the time of the divorce that will adequately compensate that spouse for his or her rightful portion of a retirement fund. For this reason, valuing and dividing retirement benefits should be one of the first issues contemplated by a divorcing party.
Is it true that my spouse is entitled to half of my pension?
No. Not always. Only the portion of the retirement fund that was contributed to or earned during the marriage is considered “marital property” and subject to division between the parties. The portion of the retirement fund that was earned by the working spouse while unmarried is considered that party’s separate property and the other spouse has no interest in that money. Therefore, the first step is to determine what portion of the retirement fund is marital and what portion is separate property.
How do you value the portion of the retirement fund that is considered “marital”?
In determining the portion of a pension or retirement plan that is considered a “marital asset” and subject to division between the parties, the court should calculate the ratio of the number of years the employed-spouse worked during the marriage to the total number of years he or she worked at the qualifying employment to earn the pension. Only the portion of the pension that was earned during the marriage is a marital asset, and the spouse of the employee is only entitled to a proportionate share of the marital asset.
Example – Employed spouse works 25 years to earn a vested pension of $100,000. 10 of these years were worked during the marriage. This equates to a 40% ratio, and only $40,000 of the pension is a martial asset. Because the division of marital property always begins with an equal division, the non-employed spouse would typically be entitled to $20,000 in this scenario.
Now, assuming the court doesn’t want to destroy the fund if it would be better for the employed spouse to contribute for 30 years, you see where it could be difficult to off-set this amount with other marital property? How many couples have $20,000 (in liquid form, moreover) lying around to award the other spouse his or her fair share of this fund at the point of divorce?
Are Social Security Benefits Divided?
No. Not directly, anyway. Social security retirement benefits are not considered marital assets to be divided when a couple divorces. A court cannot distribute a portion of one spouse’s SS benefits to the other spouse directly. However, the court does consider the SS benefits when making an equitable division of retirement benefits overall – See Smith v. Smith (1993, Franklin Co) 632 N.E.2d 555 (“while not divisible as a marital asset, SS benefits must be considered when equitably dividing pension benefits”).
Are State and federal retirement plans treated differently?
Yes. The law related to state and federal retirement plans will be the subject of a later post. There are specific rules that govern certain public-forms of pensions, such as military pensions, State pension plans (e.g., PERS) and deferred compensation plans. Those forms of retirement benefits are impacted by specific federal and state statutes that must be consulted where applicable.
Brought to you by the Miami Valley Ohio law offices of Morrison & Nicholson. Call today to schedule a consultation (937) 432 – 9775.
Under current Ohio law, grandparents are permitted to petition the court for visitation rights with respect to their grandchildren. One would think that such a petition would not be necessary, but, unfortunately, more than we would like to think grandparents are prevented from seeing thier grandchildren. Quite frequently, grandparents turn to the courts in order to have the opportunity to spend time with their grandchildren. This often comes up as a problem when a couple divorces and whomever is chosen as the residential parent does not want his or her former in-laws to visit the children. Therefore, grandparents need to be aware that if the Court finds that it is in the child’s best interest to have visitation with his or her grandparents, they do have legal recourse. However, it must be noted that the Court is required to give some special weight to the wishes of the parents as to whether the grandparents are granted the right to certain visitation with the children.
This does not mean that the parents wishes control the Court’s decision, but that if the parents feel strongly against visitation, the court must consider that fact. But even if the residential parent does not want to allow the visitation, the Court can , and often does, grant the visitation if it is in the best interest of the child. There are specific stautory provisions that cover the visitation rights of grandparents in Ohio, so you should seek the advice of counsel to determine if your case is worth pursuing.
Brought to you by the Ohio law offices of Morrison & Nicholson. Call today for a free consultation (937) 432 – 9775.
We had quite a reaction to the blog related to whether a child can choose which parent to live with upon the parents divorce in Ohio. Readers were surprised to learn that a child no longer had the ability to make such a choice, even if the child is 12 or 13 years old, and many were upset to learn this fact (evidently many were counting on this fact). Given the level of reaction, we thought that a few points of clarification were in order. While it is true that a child in Ohio no longer has the absolute right to choose which parent he or she would like to be deemed the residential and custodial parent, a child’s preferences can play a role in the Court’s ultimate decision on the matter.
Under current Ohio law, when a party requests (or upon the Court’s own motion) the minor child can be interviewed by the judge or magistrate in chambers (called an “in-camera” review) as to the child’s wishes and concerns related to custody matters. However, before the Court will take into account the child’s wishes or preferences regarding child custody, it must first determine whether the child has the maturity level to adequately express such feelings in a useful manner (what the statute calls “reasoning ability”).
Should the child have the requisite reasoning ability, the Court must then ask whether interviewing the child and asking him or her to express those wishes and concerns is actually in the best interest of the child, or whether asking the child to “choose” between parents would be detrimental to the child. In other words, although the Court is empowered to take into account the child’s preferences in determining custody matters, it will only do so if the child is mature enough to provide useful input and if asking the child to pick between parents would not be detrimental to the child’s well-being. So, in short, for those of you counting on the fact that your child wants to live with you as being the winning card against your ex, there is some benefit to that being the case, even if the law doesn’t allow the child to make the ultimate decision.