Bonvillian v. Clark
2014 Ohio 2003
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents (Clark and Bonvillian) share a minor child, K.C.; local CSEA had previously calculated monthly child-support amounts.
- Clark moved for custody and temporary allocation; parties later agreed to a shared parenting plan before the final hearing.
- After agreement on custody, only child support remained contested; both parties filed memoranda proposing different calculations and requests for deviation based on increased parenting time.
- Trial court adopted the shared parenting plan and entered child-support orders based on the R.C. 3119.022 worksheet (two alternative amounts depending on health-insurance provision) and did not grant a downward deviation.
- Clark appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider R.C. 3119.24 deviations and by not explaining its denial of deviation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bonvillian) | Defendant's Argument (Clark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not applying R.C. 3119.24 to consider a downward deviation from guideline child support after entry of a shared parenting plan | Support the guideline amount; presumably that the worksheet amount should stand | Trial court should at least consider extraordinary circumstances and statutory factors under R.C. 3119.24 and explain any denial of deviation | No abuse of discretion. Court may calculate support under the worksheet and decline to deviate; R.C. 3119.24 only requires consideration and findings when a court actually deviates, not when it declines to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 1997) (articulates appellate standard and principles for child-support deviations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Hurte v. Hurte, 164 Ohio App.3d 446 (Ohio App.) (worksheet-calculated amount is rebuttable presumption of correct support)