Hendrickson v. Parrett
2014 Ohio 3997
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents never married; child born March 8, 2012; relationship ended about two months after mother became pregnant.
- CSEA issued an administrative child support order in September 2012 requiring father to pay support effective September 14, 2012.
- Mother filed for review in juvenile court; a magistrate on July 15, 2013 modified support and made it retroactive to the child’s birth date (March 8, 2012).
- Both parties filed general objections to the magistrate’s decision; Mother later supplemented with specifics, Father did not despite being given time to do so.
- Trial court adopted the magistrate’s order (including retroactivity) and awarded the federal tax dependency exemption for the child to Mother.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the support order should not be retroactive because Mother prevented his contact with the child, and (2) the tax exemption should have been awarded to him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child support may be made retroactive to birth date | Mother sought retroactive support to birth (court adopted magistrate) | Parrett argued retroactivity was improper because he had to establish parentage/visitation; Mother’s conduct delayed him | Waived by Father for appeal: he filed only a general objection and failed to timely supplement; court affirmed retroactivity |
| Which parent entitled to claim child as tax dependent | Mother (residential parent) argued entitlement; no dispute presented below | Parrett argued he should get deduction because he spends substantial time with child and is current on support | Court awarded deduction to Mother: presumption for residential parent and Father offered no evidence showing award to him was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.P.R., 197 Ohio App.3d 193 (2011) (failure to timely, specifically object to magistrate’s findings waives appellate review)
- Meassick v. Meassick, 171 Ohio App.3d 492 (2006) (nonresidential parent bears burden to show awarding dependency exemption to them is in child’s best interest)
- Burns v. May, 133 Ohio App.3d 351 (1999) (presumption favoring residential parent for tax dependency deduction)