2018 Ohio 5261
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (Brosky) and Father (Dr. Krebs) had a child (E.) born March 5, 2009; E. has significant medical/ developmental needs (autism, speech disturbance, hypotonia, etc.).
- Mother filed to establish paternity and child support in June 2014; genetic testing confirmed paternity.
- Magistrate ordered Father to pay $5,000/month child support retroactive to January 1, 2012; imputed $66,000 (rounded) annual income to Mother; required Father to provide health insurance and ordered uninsured medical expenses split 50/50.
- Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; Mother objected and appealed, raising four assignments of error challenging (1) income imputation to Mother, (2) retroactivity start date, (3) $5,000/month award, and (4) 50/50 split of uninsured medical costs.
- Appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: upheld imputation, upheld retroactivity to 1/1/2012, upheld $5,000/month support, but reversed the equal allocation of uninsured medical expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brosky) | Defendant's Argument (Krebs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by imputing $66,000/year to Mother | Imputation improper because she was not voluntarily unemployed and court lacked evidence of prevailing wages/ job availability | Mother voluntarily unemployed/underemployed; court may impute income based on prior earnings | Affirmed: court did not err to find voluntary unemployment and to impute ~ $66k based on prior earnings and circumstances |
| Proper retroactivity start date for child support (birth v. Jan 1, 2012) | Support should be retroactive to child’s birth (2009) | No reliable evidence of Father’s income 2009–2011; statute requires verified past incomes to compute retroactive support | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in setting retroactivity to 1/1/2012 given lack of verified income evidence for earlier years |
| Whether $5,000/month child support was an abuse of discretion | Amount excessive relative to statutory computation and Mother’s needs | Father’s high income and child’s elevated needs justify an award above the capped schedule amount | Affirmed: under R.C. 3119.04(B) court permissibly set support above the $150k schedule minimum after considering parents’ incomes and child’s needs |
| Whether uninsured medical expenses should be split 50/50 | Equal split is unreasonable given Mother’s financial hardship and disparity in incomes | Equal apportionment may be reasonable; court has discretion to set formula | Reversed: 50/50 allocation was an abuse of discretion; trial court failed to provide a rational basis for equal division given income disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (trial court’s discretion in setting support amount is reviewed for abuse of discretion; computations under child support statutes govern imputation and awards)