be the father of the child, the father * * * may file a complaint requesting the court of common pleas of the county in which the child resides to grant [him] reasonable companionship or visitation rights with respect to the child.” Thus, the two methods for a father to secure companionship rights with an illegitimate child is to either acknowledge his paternity or have his paternity determined in an action pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3111. It is undisputed that appellant did not acknowledge his paternity with the probate court following Casey Jo’s birth. The HLA tests conclusively exclude him as the father of Casey Jo. Consequently, there is no statutory basis permitting the juvenile court to order visitation rights in this case. See In re Martin (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 250, 626 N.E.2d 82 (<HOLDING>). Given that visitation or companionship rights
recognizing right of fit parent to prevent visitation by grandparents which right can only be overridden by court based on evidence that the prevention of the visitation would harm the child holding that biological grandparents were statutory strangers to children following their adoption by stepfather statute authorizing grandparent visitation violated parents constitutional right to privacy holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself holding that postadoption visitation of child who was adopted by grandparents on basis of biological parents unconditional consent was required to promote childs best interests holding that under the plain language of rc 310912 grandparents are not qualified to seek courtordered visitation rights with their putative biological grandchild until the alleged paternity of the grandchild is established under either of the methods set forth in the statute