Legal Opinion

Noble v. Noble

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1979No. 78-637PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant contends that since appellee is not the child’s natural parent the Court of Appeals erred in denying the writ of habeas corpus without finding by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant is an unfit or unsuitable parent.

In Clark v. Bayer (1877), 32 Ohio St. 299, this court recognized that parents who are “suitable” persons have a paramount right to the custody of their minor children. One hundred years later, in In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 89, 98, we found that “based on the concern displayed in the Clark opinion for balancing the interests of both parent and child,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate BoardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Perales v. NinoOhio Supreme Court · 1977

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. E. E. B. v. D. A.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  2. Reynolds v. Ross County Children's Services AgencyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Eeb v. DaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  4. Hughes v. ScaffideOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. In Re ReeseOhio Court of Appeals · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API