In re Marriage of Barber

9 Citing cases

  1. Marshall v. Marshall

    117 Ohio App. 3d 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 16 times

    In making its decision in regard to custody, the trial court placed undue emphasis on the fact that Brigitte left Ohio and established a residence out of state. Citing Annotation (1951), 15 A.L.R.2d 432, 439, the court in In re Marriage of Barber (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375, 8 OBR 485, 488, 457 N.E.2d 360, 363, noted: "The overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that a nonresident or one who intends to become a nonresident will not be deprived of the right to the custody of a child merely because of his nonresidence; and that if the best interests of the child will be promoted, custody will be awarded to nonresidents, the same as it would be to residents; one intending to become a nonresident will be permitted to remove the child to his or her new residence.

  2. Rowe v. Franklin

    105 Ohio App. 3d 176 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 31 times
    In Rowe, the mother sought to permanently relocate her son from Ohio to Kentucky, where the two had temporarily resided, based upon her position as a part-time pilot with the United States Army.

    Although the court can consider nonresidency in determining the best interests of the child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(j), nonresidency alone cannot deprive a parent of custody. In re Marriage of Barber (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375, 8 OBR 485, 488, 457 N.E.2d 360, 363; see Vincenzo v. Vincenzo (1982), 2 Ohio App.3d 307, 2 OBR 339, 441 N.E.2d 1139. D. NONSTATUTORY FACTORS

  3. L.S. v. C.S.

    2024 Ohio 206 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    {¶ 21} Father also challenges the trial court permitting mother to relocate with the child to Florida. In In re Marriage of Barber, 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375, 457 N.E.2d 360 (8th Dist.1983), our colleagues in the Eighth District stated the following: The overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that a nonresident or one who intends to become a nonresident will not be deprived of the right to the custody of a child merely because of his nonresidence; and that if the best interests of the child will be promoted, custody will be awarded to nonresidents, the same as it would be to residents; one intending to become a nonresident will be permitted to remove the child to his or her new residence.

  4. In re O.L.G.C.

    2020 Ohio 4981 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    {¶ 56} A trial court may consider nonresidence in determining a child's best interests, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(j), but nonresidence alone should not deprive a parent of custody. Marshall v. Marshall, 117 Ohio App.3d. 182, 187, 690 N.E.2d 68 (3d Dist.1997), citing In re Marriage of Barber, 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375, 457 N.E.2d 360 (8th Dist.1993); Rowe v. Franklin, 105 Ohio App.3d 176, 184, 663 N.E.2d 955 (1st Dist.1995). As indicated above, although appellee's move to Pennsylvania makes visitation more challenging, this factor alone should not decide the custody determination.

  5. In re B.T.

    2017 Ohio 7454 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    {¶47} The law presumes it is in the overriding best interests of a child to be raised by his or her natural parents. In re Hughes, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 1759, 1982 WL 2875, *3 (Jan. 20, 1982) ("there is a strong presumption that it is in the child's best interests to be raised by its natural parents"); In re Mullens, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-790315, 1980 WL 352882, *2 (April 2, 1980) (there is "a strong tendency in our law to find the child's best interests lies in staying with a natural parent"); see also In re Marriage of Barber, 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375 (8th Dist.1983) ("it is in the best interests of children that they continue to know, love, and respect their natural parents"). The federal and state constitutions, as well as the statute, protect the reciprocal rights of parents and their children, including children's rights to be with their parents, and that of parents to be with their children.

  6. In re M.B.

    2017 Ohio 7293 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    {¶ 47} The law presumes it is in the best interests of a child to be raised by his or her natural parents. In re Hughes , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 1759, 1982 WL 2875, *3 (Jan. 20, 1982) ("there is a strong presumption that it is in the child's best interests to be raised by its natural parents"); In re Mullens , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C–790315, 1980 WL 352882, *2 (April 2, 1980) (there is "a strong tendency in our law to find the child's best interests lies in staying with a natural parent"); see alsoIn re Marriage of Barber , 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375, 457 N.E.2d 360 (8th Dist. 1983) ("it is in the best interests of children that they continue to know, love, and respect their natural parents"). {¶ 48} With respect to the issue of M.B.'s best interest, the caseworker, Ms. Kasputis and the GAL, Mr. Shiflit, each testified that appellant has done well to stabilize herself and change her life for the better.

  7. Hurst v. Hurst

    2014 Ohio 4762 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)

    [t]he overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that a nonresident or one who intends to become a nonresident will not be deprived of the right to custody of a child merely because of his nonresidence; and that if the best interests of the child will be promoted, custody will be awarded to nonresidents, the same as it would be to residents; one intending to become a nonresident will be permitted to remove the child to his or her new residence.Ornelas at ¶ 13, quoting In re Marriage of Barber, 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375 (8th Dist.1983). {¶ 36} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by designating Father as the residential parent for Jo.H. and A.H. The magistrate heard testimony that Jo.H. and A.H. have been lifelong residents of Carlisle, Ohio and are well adjusted to Father's home, community, and their respective schools in Carlisle.

  8. Rarden v. Rarden

    2013 Ohio 4985 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    The overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that a nonresident or one who intends to become a nonresident will not be deprived of the right to custody of a child merely because of his nonresidence; and that if the best interests of the child will be promoted, custody will be awarded to nonresidents, the same as it would be to residents; one intending to become a nonresident will be permitted to remove the child to his or her new residence.In re Marriage of Barber, 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375 (8th Dist.1983); Ornelas at ¶ 13. {¶ 14} Upon a thorough review of the record, we do not find it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to condition Mother's designation as residential parent upon her return to the Middletown/Franklin area and her enrollment of Liam in Middletown Prep.

  9. Ornelas v. Ornelas

    978 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    [t]he overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that a nonresident or one who intends to become a nonresident will not be deprived of the right to custody of a child merely because of his nonresidence; and that if the best interests of the child will be promoted, custody will be awarded to nonresidents, the same as it would be to residents; one intending to become a nonresident will be permitted to remove the child to his or her new residence.In re Marriage of Barber, 8 Ohio App.3d 372, 375, 457 N.E.2d 360 (8th Dist.1983). {¶ 14} In Chirico, the Second District found that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded primary custody to a mother who was moving from Ohio to Utah and awarded father visitation for six weeks during the summer and two holidays.