Ohio Supreme Court - Fisher vs. Hasenjager (06-1853



In the News

Letter to Editor


Transcript (New)

Legal Docs

Oral Arguments








Ohio Constitution

Download or

Order Free Book

 The Fisher vs. Hasenjager custody dispute originated in Mercer County, Ohio, in the juvenile court of Judge Mary Pat Zitter.

We won,
then we lost even more!
Paul and Demetra take a breather during the F4J Justice March at the 2008 Family Preservation Festival in Washington DC.
Judge Zitter has issued a new judgment on this case, without holding a new hearing. Mother is awarded full custody, father has visitation for 48 hours every other weekend.

In all her wisdom, Judge Zitter has upheld her previous findings and appended a "change of circumstance" section to comply with the mandate of the Ohio Supreme Court. She also removed incriminating statements against the mother and added new opinons detrimental to the father.

Her choosen change of circumstance is that the father "Apparently changed his intentions."

Judge Zitter has determined that is in my daughter's best interest to only have time with me 27 hours a week, on average. Interestingly, she reached this conclusion without a new hearing, using the exact same evidence as her previous determination that 50% parenting time with both parents was in my child's best interest.

• same issues
• same case
• same circumstances
• same witnesses
• same evidence

+ Differnt day
+ Different mood

= a different "Best interest of the child," and a different verdict!

This case demonstrates the casual tyranny that occurs everyday in family court.

The only predictability in family court is the consistent inconsistencies.

This is the disease called "Judicial Discretion" created by a lazy legislature, who would rather quietly endorse the systematic trampling of fundamental rights, than to risk offending special interest groups. This is your country what do you plan to do to fix it?

What is to stop them from doing this to you and your children?

Martin NiemoellerFirst they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

ABC 18 Logo WLQP - LimaVictory at the
Ohio Supreme Court

November - Lima, Ohio

We Won!
Ohio Supreme Court Summary:
Court Must Find ‘Change in Circumstances’ Before Modifying Designation of Child’s Custodial Parent

(Oct. 25, 2007) In a decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that before a court may modify the designation of a child's residential parent and legal custodian, the court must determine not only that the modification is in the best interest of the child, but also that a “change in circumstances” affecting the prior parenting arrangement has occurred. The Court's 5-2 majority decision was written by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer.

Read the 16 page Ohio Supreme Court Opinion
as a Webpage
as a pdf document
The high court took 141 days to reach a verdict.

This is still not over...
The case has been remanded back to the Mercer County Juvenile Court, Mary Pat Zitter.

It's time for the public to speak up
Contact information for Judge Mary Pat Zitter

Ask what else must a father do to protect and love his child?
It's time to do what is right, it's time to give Paul back his parental rights!
If the judge is still hostile to a father protecting his daughter,
then it is time for the judge to remove herself from the case.

If you would like to recieve email updates about the case and this website please email

Local parental rights case sets precedent
The Daily Standard, Celina, OH - November 1, 2007

Website | Scan

Lakefest Parade
Celina, Mercer County, OH
July 28, 2007

View Photo Gallery

Download Parade Flyer

What this case means for Ohio.

The Ohio Supreme Court appeal challenges the legitimacy and constitutionality of having two conflicting laws regarding how a judge may modify a shared parenting order.
The current duel statute situation violates the US Constitution, 14th Amendent, Section 1 and The Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 1.
Essentially eliminating a citizens right to "Due Process."

The Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview


ABC 18 Logo WLQP - LimaFighting for Fatherhood

July 12, 2007 - Lima, Ohio

   His fight began more than a year ago, and now his case is in the hands of Ohio's highest court.
     Simply put Paul Fisher is fighting to be a dad.
     Right now he has a shared parenting order, so basically he can do what a dad does. But he has no legal rights to make decisions on his daughter's behalf.
     But Paul is hoping to change that.
     Last week his case was presented to the Ohio Supreme Court.
     But no matter which way the high court goes, it could require shared parenting to actually be shared, and Paul says that will benefit moms and dads everywhere.
     "The real important part is when fathers win, kids win. Kids need both parents, and so if dad gets anything, it will help kids," Fisher said.
     There's no telling when the court will make its decision, but Paul is holding out for a happy ending.

Oral Arguments were Wed, June 6, 07

I am very pleased with the Oral Arguments, Atty. Dougherty was confident and clear. He made the point firmly and I believe the Supreme Court Justices recognized some major flaws with our current system.

13:02 "How can you have a shared parenting without custody being shared?"

20:30 "What fasinates me about this case. How can you have shared parenting when you don't have co-parenting?"

Fathers-4-Justice Video
Mercer County Rally, Feb 28, 2007
Watch Video
ABC News 18, Lima, OH
Mercer County Rally, Feb 28, 2007
Website | Watch Video
The Daily Standard, Feb 27, 2007
website | scanned article (.pdf)
The Daily Standard, March 1, 2007
Website | Scan

Home | Legal Docs | In the News | Photos | Videos | Links | Contact