Willis v. Willis, 78-CV-1047
| Decision Date | 25 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-CV-1047,78-CV-1047 |
| Parties | , 25 O.B.R. 50 WILLIS v. WILLIS. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
Syllabus by the Court
An Ohio court has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act in a contempt, visitation and change of custody matter where the parties previously have entered into a consent order in Ohio for custody and visitation, and where Ohio has had at least equal family ties as compared to the foreign state and there is available in Ohio substantial evidence concerning the child's care, protection, training and relationship, even though the children now have another home state.
Richard Willis, pro se.
Carol Hake, Batavia, for defendant.
On October 19, 1984, plaintiff, Richard Willis, filed a motion for order of contempt that defendant, Carlene Willis, show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court for her failure to provide visitation, and for an order for continued regular visitation, or alternatively for change of custody. Plaintiff complained of defendant's alleged breach of the April 20, 1984 order of the court which provided for visitation in a particular manner with the children who now reside in West Virginia with the mother-defendant.
The matter was set before the referee for hearing on November 30, 1984. On November 2, 1984, defendant filed a motion to transfer pursuant to R.C. 3109.25, and argued before the referee that Ohio is an inconvenient forum and that West Virginia should hear the matter. The referee in his report found that the case of In re Wonderly (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 178, 423 N.E.2d 420 , appeared to require that the matter be referred for handling in West Virginia. However, the referee found that because this court had been involved with the matter as recently as April 20, 1984, where the parties entered into the consent order specifying visitation, and because transferring the matter might encourage if not merely permit a potential contemnor to avoid contempt proceedings by seeking transfer to a new forum, that it would be an abuse of discretion to transfer the matter to West Virginia.
Defendant timely filed her objection to the referee's report on December 12, 1984. The matter came on for hearing before this court on January 16, 1985. The court, being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed pertinent case law finds that the decision reached by the referee was in accordance with law, and that it was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.
In In re Wonderly, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that where a foreign state has a significant connection with the subject children of a custody dispute and where, as a whole, the foreign state is in a better position to receive and evaluate the salient facts of the children's well-being, the Ohio court should refrain from hearing the matter and should dismiss it so that the foreign state may hear the evidence in the best interests of the children. The referee in the instant matter found that although the holding in Wonderly would seem to indicate that the case should be referred to West Virginia, insofar as the children and mother reside there and evidence as to the well-being of the children is available there, the case should remain in Ohio, as the court has so recently dealt with the custody and visitation issues.
The court finds that this case is comparable to that of Smith v. Superior Court (197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cann v. Howard
...for Ohio to assume continuing jurisdiction. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3109.22(A)(2) (Anderson 1989). In Willis v. Willis, 25 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 25 OBR 50, 495 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio Com.Pl.1985), an Ohio court held that even though children resided with their mother in West Virginia, it had jurisdict......
- State v. Courtney