Freed v. Freed, 2015 Ohio 4527

Scott and Danielle Freed divorced in 2003; four children were born during the marriage (Zackery, Alivia, Elijah, Eden). Shared parenting plan and child support were entered, later adjusted by change in employment.
By 2008, Zackery had been subject to juvenile proceedings, was committed to juvenile detention in Feb 2008, released in July 2009, and placed in foster care under Hancock County Children’s Protective Services (HCCPSU).
The Hancock County Child Support Enforcement Agency moved in 2008 to modify support after Zackery’s placement; hearings occurred in 2009–2010 before magistrates.
A magistrate recommended vacating the shared parenting plan, awarding Scott child support to pay Danielle for all four children but diverting one-quarter of his payment to HCCPSU for Zackery, and granting Danielle the children’s tax exemptions from 2008 forward.
The trial court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation in 2015; Scott appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked jurisdiction to order support for Zackery to Danielle, (2) the court improperly redirected one-fourth of support to HCCPSU sua sponte, and (3) the court improperly awarded tax exemptions retroactive to 2008.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scott could be ordered to pay child support to Danielle for Zackery after Zackery became a ward of the juvenile court	Scott: Domestic relations court lacked jurisdiction to order support to Danielle because Zackery was under juvenile court jurisdiction and placed in foster care	Danielle: Award was proper; court also diverted 1/4 of support to HCCPSU for Zackery	Court: Reversed as to support for Zackery — domestic relations court erred because juvenile court had custody; Danielle should not receive support for Zackery
Whether the trial court could redirect one-fourth of payments to HCCPSU sua sponte	Scott: Redirect was improper and no corresponding order required Danielle to pay HCCPSU	Danielle: Redirect justified as contribution toward Zackery’s care	Court: Moot after reversal on first issue; not addressed on merits
Whether trial court could award dependency exemptions retroactive to 2008 when motion filed in 2009	Scott: Retroactive award prejudiced him because he already filed 2008 return claiming exemptions	Danielle: Modification of tax exemptions was properly before the court because the support modification motion was filed in 2008	Court: Overruled Scott’s objection — court may decide tax exemptions back to the year the modification motion was filed (2008), so award to Danielle was not an abuse of discretion

In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (1992) (juvenile court has jurisdiction to determine custody and make lawful disposition for a child alleged abused, neglected, dependent, or delinquent)