At what age can a child decide they don't want to visit

[Just Blue]

I do not know what county in Ohio OP is in. This is an excerpt from the Jefferson County parenting guidelines:



I believe many of the counties have the same guidelines.


so, what county are you in slnb73? If you claim dad has to supply clothes per the county parenting guidelines, apparently it isn't Jefferson county but given I know several others do include this statement (above), I am curious what county you are in that does not include the above statement.

Franklin County Per posting Hx.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/getting-custody-back-grandparents-489852-p2.html

 

[justalayman]

Franklin County Per posting Hx.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/getting-custody-back-grandparents-489852-p2.html

from Franklin county's parenting guidelines:

17. Clothing: The parents shall cooperate in the exchange of the children's clothing prior to and following parenting time.

they do not appear to have the requirement the residential parent provide the clothing but they surely do not have a requirement the non-residential parent is required to provide clothing like OP stated either.


http://www.fccourts.org/drj/PDF/forms/J-394.pdf

 

[TheGeekess]

actually, (and this is just me being picky) but junior is not obligated to follow a court order that is not directed to him. It is an order involving the parents actions. Sonny, of course, is required to comply with his parent's directives and since the parent's are required to comply with the order, it appears the child is required to comply with the order but in fact, it is not an accurate statement.

Yes, it is directed at Junior, Mom and Dad. A court order is a private law for them all.

 

[justalayman]

Yes, it is directed at Junior, Mom and Dad. A court order is a private law for them all.

I have never seen a child parenting plan order that included the child as a party to the order and yes, I happen to have seen orders for child support/custody/and visitation from Ohio. The child is not a party to the issue so the courts cannot issue orders the uninvolved party is bound to. If they were, that would mean a child would be able to sue for for unpaid child support and would be able to seek modifications of custody and visitation orders. Child support, visitation, and custody are orders involving the parents as the involved parties. The child is nothing more than chattel for the purposes of the order.

 

[Proserpina]

Okay, do I need to call a time-out here? (Don't mind me - I'm still s******g over the freakin' Seachickens winning)

You're BOTH right.

Geekess is correct that any and all custody orders pertain to the child.
JAL is correct in saying that the child is not a party to the order.

But this does raise a somewhat interesting point. There are some orders and contracts where a third party has the right to sue the party not abiding by the order.

I'm thinking of one example in particular (and it does technically involve family law), but it's a curious thing nonetheless.

 

[justalayman]

Geekess is correct that any and all custody orders pertain to the child.
JAL is correct in saying that the child is not a party to the order.

they obviously pertain to the child. Never said anything contrary but the child is not bound by the orders and that was my original statement.

Quote Originally Posted by TheGeekess View Post

Junior has no choice but to follow the court order as you do until he ages out. :

actually, (and this is just me being picky) but junior is not obligated to follow a court order that is not directed to him. It is an order involving the parents actions. Sonny, of course, is required to comply with his parent's directives and since the parent's are required to comply with the order, it appears the child is required to comply with the order but in fact, it is not an accurate statement.

where as Geekess stated the child was obligated to comply with the order which would mean the child is bound by the order. Obviously not a true statement.

But this does raise a somewhat interesting point. There are some orders and contracts where a third party has the right to sue the party not abiding by the order.

I'm thinking of one example in particular (and it does technically involve family law), but it's a curious thing nonetheless.

that would be a third party beneficiary. The closest thing in child custody and such that might fit would be child support payments being made but the courts do not look at support payments as benefits to the child but recompense to the parent that spent their money to support the child.

 

[Proserpina]

I know. It was a feeble attempt on my part to get the actual thread back on track.

Now I feel like Andrew Luck.

 

[justalayman]

I know. It was a feeble attempt on my part to get the actual thread back on track.

Now I feel like Andrew Luck.

andrew luck? no idea who he is so the reference flew right by me.


but to get the thread back on track:


18

 

[Ohiogal]

Actually, a child could be considered a party if it is NOT a divorce and it happened in juvenile court. Juvenile court defines the child as a party.

 

[LdiJ]

Actually, a child could be considered a party if it is NOT a divorce and it happened in juvenile court. Juvenile court defines the child as a party.

It has always been my understanding, that as a general rule, a judge cannot force a child to abide by the parenting schedule, but can punish the parent in control of the child (at that moment) for not exercising their control over the child by requiring the child to abide by the parenting schedule. That sentence sounds convoluted...sorry.

 

[Ohiogal]

It has always been my understanding, that as a general rule, a judge cannot force a child to abide by the parenting schedule, but can punish the parent in control of the child (at that moment) for not exercising their control over the child by requiring the child to abide by the parenting schedule. That sentence sounds convoluted...sorry.

Depends. There is a case at the Supreme Court of Ohio right now regarding a child being forced to abide by the parenting schedule.

In Re A.W.

How that case is decided will impact a lot of things.

 

[Proserpina]

Depends. There is a case at the Supreme Court of Ohio right now regarding a child being forced to abide by the parenting schedule.

In Re A.W.

How that case is decided will impact a lot of things.

Oh please keep us informed for that one - I'd love to see how it turns out!

 

[LdiJ]

Depends. There is a case at the Supreme Court of Ohio right now regarding a child being forced to abide by the parenting schedule.

In Re A.W.

How that case is decided will impact a lot of things.

Do you have a link? I have found three different cases, in three different counties, that are In Re A.W, but none of them seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand (they are all dependency cases). I really would like to read it.

 

[Ohiogal]

Do you have a link? I have found three different cases, in three different counties, that are In Re A.W, but none of them seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand (they are all dependency cases). I really would like to read it.

I know of two of those three if not all three. Someone got the bright idea that initials should be used That is hopefully going to go the way of the wind eventually. And it would have helped if I had not made a typo:

Do Minors Have a Constitutional Right to Participate in a Visitation Hearing?

In re A.G., a minor child, Case no. 2012-2097
Sixth District Court of Appeals (Ottawa County)

ISSUE: When a court denies a minor the opportunity to participate in a trial in which he or she has a direct interest, is that denial a violation of the minor’s constitutional right to due process?

BACKGROUND:
The parents of a minor, identified in this case by her initials, A.G., divorced in 2001, when A.G. was 5 years old. During the years leading up to and following the divorce, her parents battled over custody of their daughter. Each parent has at different times had custody of A.G., and both have taken her out of the country to avoid custody orders.

In September 2009, A.G.’s father sought unsupervised visitation with his then teenage daughter from the juvenile court. A.G. countered with a motion to end all visitations with her father. She also asked the court to allow her to attend and participate in the proceedings. The trial court denied both of A.G.’s requests and granted unsupervised visitation to the father. A.G.’s attorneys appealed the decision to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.

In their appeal, A.G.’s attorneys argued in part that the trial court’s denial of A.G.’s request to attend the hearing violated her due process rights under the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. The Sixth District determined that the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure don’t apply to proceedings that determine parent-child relationships, including hearings about custody and visitation rights. Also, A.G. had an attorney present at the hearing, and she had recorded an interview to express her wishes to the court. Given these findings, the appeals court ruled that the trial court’s decision to not allow A.G. to be present at the hearing was not an error. Attorneys for the minor appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Attorneys for A.G. argue in their brief to the Supreme Court that if the juvenile rules don’t apply in this case, as the Sixth District ruled, then the court must rely on the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. They assert that the civil rules don’t specifically prohibit a child’s participation in a hearing and the rules apply to all persons, regardless of age.

If the juvenile rules do apply in this case, contrary to the Sixth District’s decision, then A.G.’s attorneys contend that the rules neither explicitly allow a child to participate nor prohibit a child from participating in a hearing in which he or she has a direct interest in the outcome.

A.G.’s attorneys assert that the trial court’s decision to keep A.G. from the hearing based on an exception in Juv.R. 1 for proceedings to determine a parent-child relationship directly contradicts the requirement in Juv.R. 27, which states that those who have a direct interest in a juvenile case may not be excluded from a hearing. They also contend that the father’s motion for unsupervised visitation was not a proceeding to determine the parent-child relationship.

A.G.’s attorneys suggest that the method courts use to determine whether a child is competent to testify as a witness in a trial could be similarly used to analyze whether courts should allow children to participate in juvenile court proceedings like this one. The Rules of Evidence state that a person is competent to be a witness if he or she is of sound mind and not under 10 years old.

Pointing to the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the parallel due process section of the Ohio Constitution, A.G.’s attorneys assert that neither document makes a distinction about the age of the persons covered by its protections. Attorneys for A.G. conclude that A.G. was denied her due process rights by not being permitted to personally participate in the trial, and they add: “Absent a legitimate compelling public policy reason which outweighs the constitutional rights guaranteed to all persons, including those under the age of majority, these existing standards and practices which treat children differently than adult persons must be changed.”

Attorneys for A.G.’s father agree with the Sixth District that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply in this case. In Wilburn v. Wilburn (2006), the Ninth District Court of Appeals found that, based on civil rules, a child does not have to be a party in a divorce custody case and the appointment of a guardian ad litem also doesn’t make a child a party to a divorce custody case. Attorneys for A.G.’s father argue that the same reasoning should be applied in this case.

While the father’s attorneys state that A.G. clearly has an interest in the proceedings, they contend that she has been given every opportunity to be heard. They also assert that if a 2008 decision by the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Hanna v. Hanna were followed in this case, A.G. would have had no independent legal right separate from her parents, and none of her motions would have even been considered.

They contend that A.G. has a qualified right to testify, but minors don’t have an unqualified, constitutional right to be present during a domestic hearing. They conclude that the current law provides children whose parents are divorcing with both measures for protection and opportunities for participation.

A.G.’s mother did not file a brief in this case, so her attorneys will not be permitted to present an oral argument in this matter.

The synopsis is "okay" but not perfect and it deals with a current juvenile court case (that used to be a domestic relations case) and the case history in the briefs is what is very interesting. The child didn't want to go on visits and fought to not go on visits. And thus due to a ruling of the judge came to the issue as described above. If the child is able to be considered a party as per juvenile rules -- the briefs go into a great deal of detail on the juvenile rules -- then how far does the participation continue? I will say I was hired by a child in a visitation/custody issue which drove the court and other attorneys crazy trying to figure out why my client was allowed to hire me. I argued juvenile rules and won my argument and my client got to participate in everything (for better or worst). So let's see what the Ohio Supreme Court states about this.

 

[justalayman]

Sounds like a great mistake in the works. A logical extension of this activity would be allowing a child to petition for a particular parent to have custody at any time. That will do nothing but bring chaos to what is already a highly stressed court and participants. Not saying a child's point of view and opinion should not be heard and given a fair consideration. Just seeing this as removing rights from both parents in determining how their child is raised. I also see it as an easily corruptible avenue for one parent to overcome court issues or even to harass the other parent.