In re B.S.
2013 Ohio 1976
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother and Father, divorced in Florida, share two children: B.S. (b. 2000) and S.S. (b. 1998); Father moved to Ohio and obtained temporary custody.
- In 2011, the parties entered a shared parenting plan; a magistrate set child support using guidelines, allowing no support from Father to Mother and plus arrears payments and cash medical support when private health coverage was unavailable.
- Mother challenged the magistrate’s determinations at the trial-court level, appealing objections to the magistrate’s decision.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings but Mother contends Father’s income and certain expenses were miscalculated and that tax exemptions were misallocated.
- The court ordered remand for recalculation of Father’s income and for completion of the child support worksheet; the tax exemptions issue was remanded for further evidence and consideration of statutory factors.
- Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in calculating Father's income | Mother argues income reflected too low; seek recalculation. | Father's testimony supported the magistrate's figure; extrapolation flawed both ways. | Remand for new, accurate income calculation. |
| Whether undocumented child care expenses were properly credited | Child care costs were not documented; challenge to $5,200 yearly figure. | Argument conceded at hearing; trial court did not abuse discretion. | No abuse; remand to confirm documentary support as part of record. |
| Whether deviation from guidelines was correctly determined based on actual parenting time | Time-share evidence should be admitted to assess deviation. | Deviations depend on recalculated worksheet; time-share testimony speculative. | Issues not ripe; affirmed decision to rely on plan-based hours; remanded for re-evaluation after worksheet. |
| Whether arrears influenced downward deviation to zero | Florida arrears should be considered against deviation. | Arrears may be considered later; not proper at this stage. | Remanded for recalculation; arrears to be weighed under updated worksheet. |
| Whether tax exemptions were properly allocated between parents | Mother should receive exemptions or allocation should reflect net tax benefits. | Court should consider net tax savings, incomes, time with children, and credits; evidence insufficient. | Sustained in part; remanded to collect information and consider factors, including arrears, to determine appropriate allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (1997) (child support determinations on discretion and guideline application)
- DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (1997) (presumption of guideline amount and deviation framework)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (1992) (requirement to complete the child support worksheet)
- Singer v. Dickinson, 63 Ohio St.3d 408 (1992) (net tax savings and factor consideration for exemptions)
- Jacobs v. Jacobs, 2012-Ohio-5815 (2012) (analysis of net tax benefit and factors for exemption allocation)
- Dunlap v. Dunlap, 9th Dist. No. 23860, 2008-Ohio-3201 (2008) (lack of evidence supporting exemption allocation presumption in shared parenting)