Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. Goll

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1996No. 94-1464PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

Appellant, the biological father of Diana Goll, challenges the trial court’s award of custody of his daughter to Paul and Virginia Reynolds. For the reasons that follow'', we find that the trial court was warranted in its grant of custody of the minor to the Reynoldses. Consequently, we affirm the court of appeals.

At the outset, we note that this case is limited to a child custody dispute initiated in juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2151.23 between biological parents and nonbiological “parents.” In such a proceeding, we have long recognized that “the welfare of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Seasons Coal Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Miller v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Perales v. NinoOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Masitto v. MasittoOhio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Evans v. McTaggartAlaska Supreme Court · 2004
  2. In re MullenOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  3. In re E.B.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. In Re Z.A.P.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. In Re I.M., Unpublished Decision (12-24-2003)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2003

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API