2019 Ohio 2970
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Divorce granted 2008; original Shared Parenting Plan required Father to pay modest child support and split school/extracurricular costs.
- Father failed to pay support; parties entered an Agreed Judgment in 2010 setting support at $0 (with medical obligations) after Mother waived arrears.
- Father moved to Florida, Mother later filed to modify child support (Aug. 2015); an “Agreed” Amended Shared Parenting Plan/entry was issued Feb. 24, 2016 (Father disputes his agreement and did not attend the underlying hearing).
- Trial court later vacated the Feb. 24, 2016 entry (June 13, 2018), found the Shared Parenting Plan had de facto ended while Father lived in Florida, and held a hearing on modification.
- The court imputed income to Father ($54,154.30 annually), calculated retroactive child support effective Sept. 1, 2015, and ordered monthly support; Father appealed challenging jurisdiction/termination of the plan, the imputed income, and retroactivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Huth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to terminate Shared Parenting Plan / whether plan was terminated | Trial court had authority (R.C. provisions) and Father’s filings invoked jurisdiction | Court lacked authority to terminate plan sua sponte; no best-interest analysis; plan remains in force | Court held it did not actually terminate the plan; observed a de facto end due to Father’s move but no order terminating plan; Father’s challenges on this point fail |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by terminating shared parenting | Modification appropriate given Father’s move and changed circumstances | No substantial change; court failed to perform required best-interest findings | Court found no termination by judge; Father’s challenge on abuse of discretion regarding termination is without merit |
| Imputing income to Father for child support | Support imputation appropriate because Father voluntarily underemployed | Imputation unsupported; no evidence Father was voluntarily underemployed or that statutory factors were applied | Court’s finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed was supported, but the imputed amount ($54,154.30) was ordered without on-record consideration of R.C. 3119.01(C)(17)(a) factors; appellate court reverses that part and remands for statutory-factor analysis |
| Retroactive date for modified child support | Retroactivity to date of motion (Sept. 1, 2015) is equitable and presumptive | Retroactivity was improper / created hardship | Court’s retroactive award to date of Mother’s motion was within discretion and not an abuse; this assignment fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (statute permits imputing income without proof of intent to evade support; focus is child’s best interests)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (trial-court discretion in domestic-relations matters reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 107 Ohio App.3d 132 (6th Dist. 1995) (recognizes presumption of retroactivity for modified child support to date of motion)
- Draiss v. Draiss, 70 Ohio App.3d 418 (9th Dist. 1990) (retroactivity rule: modification generally applies back to date of motion absent special circumstances)