2017 Ohio 8597
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Heather Clifford and Joshua Skaggs (married 2008; one child born 2010) divorced after separation in 2014; parties submitted competing shared parenting plans and disputed several financial and custody-related matters at trial.
- Trial court (post-trial decision and final decree) ordered Skaggs to reimburse Clifford $1,600 for unpaid summer 2016 childcare, split certain medical/psychological costs, award Clifford $600/month spousal support for 12 months, designate Clifford residential parent, adopt a modified parenting-time schedule, and set child support at $1,326.14/month.
- Court instructed Clifford to submit a revised shared parenting plan addressing the court’s objections; Skaggs could respond. The decree adopted Clifford’s revised plan, but the record lacks the actual revised plan and the trial court did not enter detailed findings explaining approval.
- Skaggs appealed, arguing error as to (1) childcare reimbursement, (2) spousal support amount/duration, (3) child support calculation when combined income exceeds $150,000, and (4) adoption of a shared parenting plan without required findings and (allegedly) crafting its own plan.
- Appellate court affirmed the awards for childcare, spousal support, and child support but reversed and remanded limitedly because the trial court failed to enter the statutorily required findings of fact and conclusions of law under R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii) when approving the shared parenting plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clifford) | Defendant's Argument (Skaggs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Childcare reimbursement amount ($1,600) | Award appropriate; unpaid weeks supported by testimony | Trial court erred; evidence supports only $1,000 | Affirmed — competent evidence supported eight weeks at $200/week ($1,600) |
| 2) Spousal support ($600/mo for 12 months) | Amount reasonable given income disparity and standard of living | Award unreasonable; trial court misattributed degrees, failed to consider underemployment, and didn't justify amount | Affirmed — court considered R.C. 3105.18 factors and record supports award |
| 3) Child support calculation when combined income > $150,000 | Use actual income and consider child’s needs/standard of living | Court should have capped at $150,000 or made special findings to justify higher base | Affirmed — court may use actual income; special findings required only if awarding less than schedule for $150,000; here amount was not less |
| 4) Adoption of shared parenting plan and required findings | Trial court followed statutory process, allowed revisions, then approved revised plan | Court failed to require both parties to submit changes, effectively created its own plan, and failed to enter statutory findings explaining approval | Reversed in part — trial court did not enter required findings/conclusions under R.C. 3109.04(D)(1)(a)(ii); remanded for proper findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (trial court abuse-of-discretion standard in domestic relations matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (trial court must consider R.C. 3105.18 factors and provide basis for spousal support award)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (factual determination of voluntary underemployment is for trial court)