## Facts

- A divorce decree incorporated a shared parenting plan that required arbitration of future disputes regarding child custody or visitation.
- The mother moved in domestic relations court to modify or terminate the shared parenting plan.
- The father moved to stay the court proceedings and compel arbitration under the parenting plan’s arbitration clause.
- The trial court denied the stay and motion to compel, concluding custody matters are not subject to arbitration.
- The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning arbitration conflicts with the domestic relations court’s duty to protect children’s best interests, and it rejected waiver and res judicata defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether disputes concerning child custody and parental visitation in a domestic relations case may be resolved through private arbitration pursuant to the parents’ agreement.
2. Whether the trial court must stay proceedings and compel arbitration when a shared parenting plan includes an arbitration clause covering custody or visitation disputes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals.
- The Court held that child custody and parental visitation disputes are not subject to arbitration.
- The Court concluded that only courts are empowered to resolve custody and visitation disputes.
- As a result, the domestic relations court was not required to stay the case or compel arbitration on the motion to modify or terminate the shared parenting plan.

## Legal Principles

- In a domestic relations case, matters of child custody and parental visitation are not arbitrable.
- Courts have a continuing parens patriae obligation to protect the best interests of children, which requires judicial oversight of custody and visitation determinations.
- Party agreements may permit arbitration of certain domestic relations financial matters (such as support), but agreements cannot displace the court’s authority over custody and visitation.
- A custody/visitation arbitration clause is unenforceable to the extent it would remove the court’s responsibility and jurisdiction over child welfare determinations.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that custody and visitation disputes must be decided by courts, not private arbitrators, because the state’s obligation to protect children’s best interests requires continuing judicial control over such determinations.


Kelm v. Kelm, 92 Ohio St. 3d 223, 749 N.E.2d 299 (Ohio 2001)