Babe v. Babe
2017 Ohio 4384
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Diana and Allen Babe divorced in 2012; they had four children then, three remained minors at the time of the custody dispute.
- In 2014 the parties entered a shared-parenting agreement; Allen later filed to change legal custody and terminate the shared-parenting plan.
- At hearings (Sept. 22 and Oct. 9, 2015) the court heard testimony, guardian ad litem recommendations, and conducted in-camera interviews of the children; court took judicial notice that Diana’s boyfriend was a registered sex offender and found evidence he resided with Diana.
- The trial court awarded sole legal and residential custody of the three minor children to Allen, suspended Diana’s visitation, prohibited direct/indirect contact by Diana or third parties, and found Diana in contempt for denying visitation.
- The court directed CSEA to review incomes and prepare child-support worksheets; based on the worksheet the court ordered Diana to pay Allen $220.18 plus 2% processing per month.
- Diana appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to deviate downward from the guideline child-support amount because she could not afford it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not deviating downward from guideline child support | Diana: the guideline amount is unjust/inappropriate given her inability to pay and monthly expenses | Allen: the worksheet calculation is presumptively correct; Diana failed to prove inability to pay or request a deviation at hearing | Court: No abuse of discretion — Diana failed to meet burden to rebut the worksheet; child support properly ordered based on CSEA worksheet |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (1997) (sets standard that child-support amount is primarily determined by the basic schedule and worksheet)
- Murray v. Murray, 128 Ohio App.3d 662, 716 N.E.2d 288 (1999) (the party seeking deviation bears the burden to show the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate)
- Batcher v. Pierce, 35 N.E.3d 904 (2015) (reiterates plaintiff’s burden to rebut the presumptive correctness of the worksheet calculation)