In re B.C.H.
2017 Ohio 5810
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (appellant) and Father (cross-appellant) were engaged but never married; twins born Feb. 4, 2013. Mother sought child support and past/birthing expenses on Nov. 1, 2014; Father counter-filed to establish paternity and disputed support amounts.
- Extensive discovery disputes: Father filed three motions to compel (beginning March 2015), asserting Mother had not produced documentation supporting claimed childcare expenses; Mother did not provide full documentation until the day before trial (April 21, 2016).
- At trial (April 22, 2016) the court initially stated it would grant Father’s motion to exclude birthing and childcare evidence; thereafter allowed Mother to testify about childcare but admitted late-produced exhibits (copies of checks and a summary of childcare expenses).
- Mother testified she paid two nannies $17–$20/hour and claimed childcare expenses of $12,233 (2013), $28,295.50 (2014), $35,230 (2015), and $10,190 (to trial date in 2016).
- Trial court awarded child support of $2,000 per month per child retroactive to Nov. 1, 2014, denied birthing expenses, and each party bore its own attorney fees.
- On appeal, Father argued admission of late-disclosed childcare evidence was prejudicial; Mother argued the court erred by not awarding past support and by failing to consider high-income threshold factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting late-disclosed childcare evidence | Mother: Evidence was admitted only as to childcare, and Father was offered a one-day continuance, so no prejudice | Father: Repeated motions to compel put Mother on notice; late production the day before trial prejudiced his ability to respond; exclusion was granted | Court: Reversed — abused discretion by allowing late-produced documentation without giving Father adequate opportunity to review; sustained Father's cross-assignment |
| Whether trial court erred in limiting retroactive support to date of filing and failing to consider past care support | Mother: Court should have considered past care support back to birth/earlier period | Father: Not addressed on merits due to dispositive discovery issue | Moot on appeal due to reversal |
| Whether court failed to consider needs/standard of living and apply high-income rules (R.C. 3119.04) | Mother: Court should apply statutory factors for combined income > $150,000 and consider private schooling/college costs | Father: Argued court must first determine whether exceeding $150,000 threshold is appropriate before awarding above-guideline amounts | Moot on appeal due to reversal |
| Whether court abused discretion in excluding birthing expenses | Mother: Trial court excluded only childcare and not birthing costs; no error | Father: Sought exclusion of birthing and childcare; trial court initially granted motion in limine | Moot on appeal due to reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Johnson, 61 Ohio App.3d 544 (8th Dist.) (juvenile court has broad discretion in discovery decisions)
- In re Lucas, 29 Ohio App.3d 165 (3d Dist.) (appellate review of juvenile court discovery rulings under abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)