M.A.M. v. A.P.H.

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 3503

Syllabus

Father appeals from a consent agreement approved in the domestic relations court, which resolved Mother's petition for a domestic violence civil protection order on behalf of the parties' minor children. A case related to the parties' parenting rights was also then pending in the juvenile court. Although the domestic relations court had jurisdiction over the petition for a protection order, it was not permitted to issue orders affecting parental rights and responsibilities over which the juvenile court had jurisdiction. From the record before us, we cannot determine whether any of the provisions of the protection order infringed on the juvenile court's jurisdiction. The domestic relations court did not err in failing to dismiss the consent agreement because of delay in scheduling the full hearing on the petition for the protection order Father had requested continuances, had changed counsel several times, and had relevant criminal matters pending that were also continued. Father consented to the inclusion of both children in the consent agreement, although domestic violence allegations related to only one of the children as such, the domestic relations court did not err in failing to dismiss the consent agreement with respect to one of the children. After Mother and Father agreed in the consent agreement to engage in reunification counseling, the specific counselor named in the agreement refused to participate. The domestic relations court did not err in concluding that reunification counseling was a material part of the consent agreement, but not the specific counselor, and that the consent agreement did not have to be reconsidered in light of the specific counselor's refusal to participate. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for clarification and additional consideration of whether the consent agreement infringed on the juvenile court's jurisdiction. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.