2018 Ohio 2955
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Parties: Mohammed Habib (father/appellant) and Hawa Shikur (mother/appellee); never married; three minor children together. Habib also has three children in Ethiopia for whom he claims a support obligation.
- Procedural posture: FCCSEA administratively proposed increasing Habib’s support; AHO and then a magistrate held hearings and increased support; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision after Habib filed objections; Habib appealed.
- Magistrate ordered guideline child support and cash medical support; apportioned uninsured medical expenses equally; awarded the three dependency exemptions to Shikur.
- Key contested issues on appeal: (1) calculation of Habib’s gross/self‑employment income and denial of ordinary-and-necessary business expense deductions; (2) denial of credit for alleged child‑support payments to Ethiopian children; (3) parenting‑time relief; (4) allocation of federal dependency exemptions.
- Evidence problems for Habib: no tax returns produced, limited receipts for business expenses, unverified method of sending money to Ethiopia, and limited proof of parenting time or tax benefit from exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of child support / gross income and business expense deductions | Habib argued the magistrate/trial court miscalculated his income, failed to allow ordinary and necessary business expense deductions, and should have credited cash business expenses he testified to | Shikur (and FCCSEA) argued Habib’s testimony and exhibits were not credible or supported by receipts/tax returns; magistrate reasonably found higher gross receipts and insufficient proof of expenses | Court affirmed: magistrate/trial court credibility findings sustained; some competent, credible evidence supports the income determination; no abuse of discretion |
| Credit for prior child‑support payments to children in Ethiopia | Habib claimed he paid court‑ordered Ethiopian support and should receive a deduction from gross income | Shikur argued Habib failed to verify actual payments (no receipts, vague testimony about sending cash via acquaintances) | Court affirmed denial of credit: payments not verified by competent documentation; testimony not credible |
| Parenting time (R.C. 3119.08) | Habib contended the court was required to award parenting time or address it when modifying support | Shikur argued no motion/complaint for parenting time was filed and Habib offered insufficient evidence on parenting‑time factors | Court affirmed: parenting time not properly pleaded or proven; insufficient evidence to set parenting schedule; trial court did not err |
| Allocation of federal dependency exemptions | Habib argued he should retain the exemptions (he previously claimed them and received a refund) | Shikur argued allocation to residential parent is presumptive and Habib failed to show awarding him the exemptions was in children’s best interests | Court affirmed allocation to Shikur: Habib failed to present tax documents or proof that exemptions served children’s best interests; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)