Byers v. Cartechine
2017 Ohio 9334
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties never married; son born Sept. 29, 2007; shared parenting plan in place since 2009.
- Initially Byers was residential parent for school and Cartechine the child-support obligor; 2013 agreed entry imputed Byers minimum-wage income and set father as obligor.
- July 30, 2014: after Byers’ inpatient alcoholism treatment, trial court granted father temporary legal custody and suspended child-support collection; father moved to modify custody/support.
- 2016: parties agreed that father would be residential parent for school purposes, but court adopted a parenting schedule that required additional midweek overnight visits and transportation by Byers.
- Magistrate found Byers voluntarily unemployed, imputed minimum-wage income, designated her the child-support obligor, and ordered support retroactive to Aug. 1, 2014; trial court adopted the decision.
- Appellant Byers appealed, arguing (1) wrongfully made obligor given income disparity and added transport costs, (2) improperly found her voluntarily unemployed and imputed income, (3) failed to deviate downward under R.C. 3119.23, and (4) erred in making support retroactive to Aug. 1, 2014. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in designating Byers as child-support obligor | Byers: income disparity and increased transport costs mean father should remain obligor | Father: changes in custodial designation were prompted by mother’s circumstances; mother enjoys financial support from her mother and can work | Court: No abuse of discretion; designation proper given totality of circumstances and mother's financial support from her mother |
| Whether imputation of income (voluntary unemployment) was improper | Byers: unable to work because of childcare and care for mother; no evidence of potential income | Father: Byers has college degree, prior earnings, is able-bodied, has subsidized lifestyle so evidence supports imputation | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly found voluntary unemployment and imputed minimum-wage income |
| Whether trial court should have deviated downward from guideline amount (R.C. 3119.22/3119.23) | Byers: increased parenting time and transportation costs justify downward deviation | Father: Byers receives substantial in-kind/financial benefits from her mother which offset costs; factors (G),(H),(P) roughly cancel | Court: No deviation warranted; magistrate reasonably found factors (income disparity, benefits, transport) offset each other and declined to deviate |
| Whether support should be retroactive to Aug. 1, 2014 rather than Jan. 11, 2016 | Byers: retroactivity should be to the date of father’s later motion (Jan. 2016) | Father: first motion modifying custody/support was filed July 30, 2014; retroactivity can run to that earlier filing | Court: Retroactivity to Aug. 1, 2014 is proper because it corresponds to father’s initial motion filed July 30, 2014 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (Ohio 1997) (appellate review of child-support determinations limited by abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 616 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio 1993) (trial court may impute potential income when parent is voluntarily unemployed)
- Marek v. Marek, 158 Ohio App.3d 750, 822 N.E.2d 410 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for trial court’s child-support findings absent abuse of discretion)
- Tobens v. Brill, 89 Ohio App.3d 298, 624 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (support modification may be made retroactive only to date motion was filed)