The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a divorce ruling in the case of Hertneky v. Hertneky, impacting both parents and their two children. The court affirmed the decision made by the Portage County Court of Common Pleas regarding custody arrangements and financial obligations, emphasizing the importance of the children's best interests.
This case began when Brian T. Hertneky filed for divorce from Jennifer A. Hertneky in July 2024, after the couple had been married since September 2016. Their marriage produced two children, and the divorce proceedings included allegations of extreme cruelty and incompatibility. The court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the children's interests during the hearings.
During the divorce hearings held in August and December 2025, both parties represented themselves, proceeding pro se. The trial court provided accommodations for the deaf parents, including American Sign Language interpreters. The court's detailed judgment entry, issued on January 30, 2026, granted the divorce on the grounds of incompatibility and addressed various issues, including custody and financial support.
The court ruled that Brian would be designated as the residential and legal custodian of the children. The judgment emphasized that the children's wishes were taken into account, as they expressed a desire to remain in Aurora, Ohio, where they were settled and attended school. The court found that Jennifer's plan to relocate to Maryland did not benefit the children and that her past actions did not support unsupervised parenting time.
In its ruling, the court stated, "The GAL recommended it was in the children’s best interests to remain in Aurora with Husband." This decision reflected the court's commitment to prioritizing the children's stability and well-being. The court also addressed financial obligations, determining that Jennifer would be responsible for a monthly child support payment of $500, taking into account her income and the costs associated with her parenting time.
The court's ruling included a thorough analysis of the factors set forth in Ohio law regarding child custody and support. The trial court found that both parents had been supporting themselves for several years and that Jennifer's income, combined with her social security disability benefits, exceeded Brian's annual income. The court concluded that spousal support was neither appropriate nor reasonable.
Jennifer appealed the trial court's decision, raising eight assignments of error, including challenges to the custody determination and claims of due process violations. However, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that Jennifer did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims, particularly due to her failure to file transcripts of the hearings.
The court noted, "Without a transcript of the proceedings, we must presume the validity of the proceedings in the trial court." This lack of documentation limited the court's ability to review her arguments effectively. The appellate court emphasized that decisions involving child custody are given great deference, and the trial court's findings were supported by competent evidence.
As a result, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there were no errors of law in the decisions made regarding custody and financial matters. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of providing adequate documentation in legal proceedings and the weight given to trial court findings in custody disputes.
This case highlights the complexities involved in divorce and custody matters, especially when both parents have unique needs and circumstances. The court's decision underscores the importance of prioritizing the children's best interests while navigating the legal system. As the parties move forward, they will need to adhere to the court's rulings and continue to focus on the well-being of their children.
Looking ahead, Jennifer may consider further legal options, including potential appeals or modifications to the custody arrangement as circumstances change. However, the current ruling stands, affirming the decisions made by the trial court and reinforcing the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to legal procedures in family law cases.