2016 Ohio 5648
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Richard Watson and Meryl Hattenbach divorced in October 2013 and adopted an agreed Shared Parenting Plan for their two minor children.
- The Plan designated both parents as residential and custodial parents; Father was scheduled for about 40% parenting time.
- The Plan set child support at $500/month per child (noting an approximate 22% deviation to reflect parenting time).
- Watson moved in Sept. 2014 to reduce child support based on time children spend with him; Hattenbach moved to increase support.
- After hearings, the magistrate increased Watson’s support obligation; the trial court adopted that decision and denied Watson’s downward deviation request.
- Watson appealed, arguing he was entitled to an automatic credit/offset under R.C. 3119.07(A) or, alternatively, a downward deviation given the shared parenting arrangement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hattenbach) | Defendant's Argument (Watson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 3119.07(A) requires an automatic credit/offset when parent has physical custody | Support worksheet presumptively correct; no automatic credit for shared parenting | R.C. 3119.07(A) mandates credit because when children are with him he is the residential/legal custodian under Plan | No. Pauly and R.C. 3109.04(L)(6) treat both parents as residential parents in shared parenting; no automatic offset |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying downward deviation from guideline support | Deviation not required; court may consider but must find extraordinary circumstances | Shared parenting and time with children justify downward deviation or credit | No abuse of discretion. Court weighed income disparity, increased child needs, and found deviation not in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (shared parenting means both parents are residential parents)
- Hubin v. Hubin, 92 Ohio St.3d 240 (no automatic credit for parenting time in shared parenting)
- Glassner v. Glassner, 160 Ohio App.3d 648 (parenting-time parity alone does not require deviation)
- Murray v. Murray, 128 Ohio App.3d 662 (party seeking deviation bears burden to show guideline is unjust/inappropriate)
- In re Custody of Harris, 168 Ohio App.3d 1 (standard of review and discretion on deviations)