Legal Opinion

Masitto v. Masitto

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1986No. 85-241PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Per curiam

The sole issue before this court is whether it is contrary to law for a trial court to proceed under the “best interest of the child” test enunciated in R.C. 3109.04 when the parent requesting a change in custody has previously consented to the appointment of the child’s grandparents as her guardians. The appellate court determined that the “suitability” test enunciated in In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 89 [6 O.O.3d 293], was the proper standard which the trial court must apply in an R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) proceeding. For the following reasons, we must reverse the appellate court and uphold…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Perales v. NinoOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Clendenning v. McCallOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  4. State ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Rowe v. RoweOhio Court of Appeals · 1950

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. McDermott v. DoughertyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  2. In re R.M.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Hockstok v. HockstokOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Hill v. BriggsOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Reynolds v. GollOhio Supreme Court · 1996

41 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