## Facts

- After divorce, James E. Pulfer (father) and Donna J. Pulfer (mother) entered a shared parenting agreement designating the mother as residential parent.
- The agreement restricted relocation: neither parent could move the child more than five miles outside Delphos, Ohio (or out of state) without court approval or approval “pursuant to arbitration.”
- The agreement also required the parties to “seek arbitration pursuant to” Ohio’s arbitration statute before resorting to court to resolve disputes under the agreement.
- On January 11, 1995, the mother filed a notice of intent to relocate; on January 18, 1995, she moved with the child from Delphos to Lima, Ohio.
- The father objected the same day and requested arbitration under the agreement.
- A referee declined to order arbitration, held an evidentiary hearing, and addressed whether relocation served the child’s best interests.
- On April 14, 1995, the referee recommended finding the relocation to Lima was in the child’s best interests.
- The father filed objections on May 1, 1995; the trial court found them untimely and adopted the referee’s recommendation, permitting the relocation.
- The father appealed, challenging (1) the refusal to arbitrate and (2) the finding that his objections were untimely.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider the father’s objections to the referee’s report as untimely.
2. Whether a shared parenting agreement’s arbitration clause can require arbitration of a child custody/relocation dispute, or whether the court must decide relocation based on the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the father’s objections to the referee’s report were untimely and properly disregarded.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to submit the relocation dispute to arbitration.
- The appellate court held that child custody matters, including relocation determinations, must be decided by the court under a best-interests analysis and are not subject to binding arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court may enforce procedural deadlines governing objections to a referee’s report; untimely objections may be rejected and the report adopted.
- Child custody and visitation matters, including relocation decisions affecting custody, are not subject to binding arbitration in domestic relations cases.
- Parties’ contractual dispute-resolution provisions cannot displace the court’s independent obligation to decide custody-related questions in accordance with the child’s best interests.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the relocation order, holding that the father’s objections to the referee’s report were untimely and that custody-related relocation disputes cannot be delegated to arbitration because the court must decide such matters under the child’s best interests.


Pulfer v. Pulfer, 110 Ohio App. 3d 90, 673 N.E.2d 656 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)