2021 Ohio 4055
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- 2015 agreed shared-parenting order set child support at $500/month for two children, a downward deviation from the worksheet amount based on father Herrera’s extended parenting time.
- Herrera moved to modify the shared parenting plan and child support on January 28, 2019 after the parties’ third child was born.
- Geauga CSEA recommended recalculating support: $298.48 per child/month (~$895 total for three children).
- Hearings occurred March 29, April 23, and June 5, 2019; on June 17 the court added the third child to the shared parenting plan and stated support would be addressed separately; on July 23 the court adopted CSEA’s recommendation.
- Herrera appealed, asserting: (1) due process violation for lack of evidentiary hearing; (2) the court should have carried forward the prior downward deviation for extended parenting time; and (3) the court erred by not applying new child-support statutes (R.C. 3119.051 and 3119.231) or explaining denial of deviations.
Issues
| Issue | Herrera’s Argument | Mullaly/CSEA’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was Herrera deprived of due process by no evidentiary hearing on support modification? | Court denied opportunity to present evidence; improperly delegated support determination to CSEA. | No disputed factual issues; Herrera’s counsel deferred and did not request an evidentiary hearing; any error was harmless/no prejudice. | No due process violation; Herrera waived an evidentiary hearing by acquiescence and failed to show prejudice. |
| 2) Should the court have carried forward the prior downward deviation for extended parenting time? | Prior deviation based on 160 overnights should continue because parenting time unchanged. | Mother did not stipulate to deviation; circumstances changed (mother’s lower income, new housing/childcare expenses); court properly weighed statutory factors. | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly declined to continue the prior deviation after considering factors. |
| 3) Did the court err by not applying H.B. 366 amendments (R.C. 3119.051/3119.231) and by failing to state reasons if it denied deviations? | New statutes require a 10% reduction for >=90 overnights and require courts to consider/additional deviations and state reasons if not granting deviations. | Amendments became effective March 28, 2019; Herrera filed his motion before the effective date, so the court applied the law in effect when the motion was filed. | No error: court applied the governing law as of the filing date; new statutes do not apply retroactively to this motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (establishes notice and hearing due-process framework)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice and opportunity for hearing are root requirements of due process)
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (due-process hearing requirement subject to waiver; formality varies)
- State ex rel. Sigler v. Lubrizol Corp., 995 N.E.2d 204 (due-process ‘‘full and fair hearing’’ requires decisionmaker meaningfully consider evidence)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (Ohio: no automatic shared-parenting credit; court may deviate if guideline result is unjust/inappropriate)
- Booth v. Booth, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (abuse-of-discretion standard for child-support deviations)
- A.S. v. J.W., 131 N.E.3d 44 (discusses scope/effective date of H.B. 366 amendments to R.C. Chapter 3119)
- Graham v. Graham, 153 N.E.3d 843 (trial courts may structure support orders to avoid retroactive application of amended statutes)