The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a decision to transfer a child custody case from Belmont County, Ohio, to Louisa County, Virginia. This ruling affects Drew Michael Hertlein and Robin N. Hertlein, who have been in a legal dispute regarding their children since their dissolution of marriage in 2019. The court determined that Ohio was an inconvenient forum for the case, which is significant for families navigating custody issues across state lines.
The case, filed under docket number 25 BE 0036, began when the Hertleins petitioned for a dissolution of their marriage in November 2019. They had three minor children together and agreed on a separation agreement that designated Robin as the residential and custodial parent. The couple was married in Virginia in 2010, but after their separation, Robin moved back to Virginia. This geographical split became central to the custody proceedings.
Initially, the Belmont County Court granted the dissolution and approved the separation agreement, which included provisions for parenting time for Drew. However, as time passed, disputes arose regarding the parenting schedule. In July 2023, Drew filed a motion to increase his parenting time, which Robin opposed by filing a motion to dismiss. She had initiated proceedings in Virginia to register their custody order, claiming that the Virginia court had accepted jurisdiction over the matter.
In September 2023, the trial court in Ohio ruled that Virginia had only accepted the case to enforce the existing agreement, not to modify it. This ruling was followed by a series of motions and hearings, including a request from Robin to transfer the case to Virginia, which she argued was in the best interests of the children. After evaluating the circumstances, the magistrate granted Robin's motion to transfer jurisdiction to Virginia, stating that it was a more appropriate forum.
The trial court later upheld this decision, stating that it found Ohio to be an inconvenient forum. In its July 2, 2025 judgment, the court noted, "Ohio is now an inconvenient forum pursuant to O.R.C. 3127.21, and the said Virginia Court is a more appropriate forum." This ruling was made after considering various factors outlined in the Ohio Revised Code, including the location of witnesses and evidence, as well as the residency of the parties involved.
Drew appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by transferring jurisdiction without conducting an evidentiary hearing. He claimed that he was denied due process because he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. However, the court found that the parties had submitted sufficient information through affidavits and written briefs, which satisfied the requirements for determining an inconvenient forum.
The court ruled that the trial court did not need to hold a hearing before transferring jurisdiction. It stated, "The statute does not require a court to detail its consideration of each factor in writing; it must simply consider them." The court concluded that the majority of evidence and witnesses were located in Virginia, and both parties had the means to litigate in that state.
This ruling is significant as it emphasizes the importance of jurisdictional convenience in child custody cases, particularly when parents reside in different states. The decision also highlights the court's discretion in determining the most appropriate forum for custody matters, which can have long-lasting implications for the families involved.
Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent for similar cases where parents live in different states and may seek to modify custody arrangements. It underscores the need for courts to consider the best interests of the children while also weighing the practicalities of where a case should be heard.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen how the Virginia court will handle the case now that it has been transferred. Drew may still have the option to appeal the ruling, but the court's decision to transfer jurisdiction appears to be final unless new developments arise. The case reflects the complexities of family law, especially in situations involving multiple jurisdictions.