Carter v. Ross
2021 Ohio 2506
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Michael Carter (appellant) filed a complaint for allocation of parental rights on Sept. 18, 2019; Christina Ross (appellee) filed a counterclaim seeking primary custody or shared parenting and child support.
- The magistrate held a hearing (June 19, 2020) and issued a decision granting shared parenting, designating both parents custodial/residential but naming Ross the residential parent for school placement purposes.
- The magistrate calculated guideline child support of $498.74 plus $24.52 cash medical, then ordered a $100 downward deviation to $398.74 based on nearly equal parenting time and shared extracurricular/tax arrangements.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; Carter did not file objections to the magistrate but filed a direct appeal to this court.
- On appeal Carter argued the court improperly dismissed his action (Civ.R. 41(B)(3)) and that the child support order was unjust; the court reviewed under a plain‑error standard because Carter waived objections and did not provide a transcript.
- The Tenth District affirmed: no dismissal under Civ.R. 41(B)(3), no plain error in parental‑rights or child‑support rulings, and denied appellee’s request for appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court dismissed appellant's action (Civ.R. 41(B)(3)) / erred in parental‑rights determination | Carter contends the court dismissed his action and otherwise erred in the shared‑parenting/residential‑parent decision | Ross: no dismissal occurred; magistrate decision was adopted; Carter waived objections and failed to provide transcript so proceedings presumed regular | Overruled. No dismissal; objections waived; absent transcript appellate court presumes regularity and finds no plain error in parental‑rights ruling |
| Whether the child support order was erroneous or unjust | Carter says the support amount is unjust and prevents him from providing for children’s activities | Ross: support was calculated per guideline; magistrate properly applied a downward deviation given near‑equal parenting time and other factors | Overruled. Court affirmed guideline calculation and the $100 deviation as reasonable; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain‑error doctrine applied only in rare, exceptional circumstances)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (when appellant fails to provide transcript, appellate court presumes regularity of trial proceedings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard defined)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (trial‑court factual findings are presumed correct because the trial court observed witnesses)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (1993) (proper worksheet calculations are rebuttably presumed accurate for child support)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (standard of review for child support matters is abuse of discretion)
- Morrow v. Becker, 138 Ohio St.3d 11 (2013) (definition of parental income for child‑support calculations)