2015 Ohio 4608
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- C.S.M. was born in December 2012; Mother and Father were never married and Mother moved with child to Denver, Colorado shortly after birth.
- A 2013-2014 juvenile proceeding established Mother as residential parent; Father received limited visitation and a child-support order of $760.48 per month with travel expenses shared.
- In September 2014, the parties filed an agreed order addressing tax exemptions, contact methods, and other issues; the trial court later modified the magistrate’s order and approved it as the Court’s order.
- Mother moved with C.S.M. to Colorado; protective orders were issued and Father was prevented from contacting the child after the move.
- A guardian ad litem recommended custody to Father to keep the child closer to Ohio relatives; the trial court awarded custody to Mother, with Father’s visitation scheduled biennially and travel costs shared.
- On April 2, 2015, after Mother’s appeal, the court issued a comprehensive judgment; Mother challenges child support deviation, arrearage repayment, and parenting time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the downward child-support deviation properly justified? | Mother argues deviation lacked findings; travel costs justify deviation. | Father contends deviation supported by travel costs and parenting time demands. | Deviation reversed; required findings under R.C. 3119.22; remand for findings or conformity to guidelines. |
| Was the arrearage repayment rate reasonable and properly stated? | Arrearage payoff rate of $25/month is too slow and inequitable. | No explicit response from Father; rate reflects offset during lack of contact period. | Arrearage repayment rate affirmed as error; remand to recalculate total arrearage and provide explicit findings. |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion in the parenting-time schedule given prior lack of contact? | Mother urges gradual phase-in of overnight visits. | Father cites credibility findings and travel burden; gradual phase-in impractical. | Schedule not an abuse of discretion; gradual phase-in rejected given travel and credibility considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 ((1992)) (requires findings to support deviation from guidelines)
- In re S.H., 2009-Ohio-6592 (2d Dist. Montgomery) (discretion in child-support deviations requires supporting findings)
- Hamby v. Hamby, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26506 (2015-Ohio-1042) (deviation from guidelines is discretionary but must follow statutory procedure)
- Owais v. Costandinidis, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2007 CA 89 (2008-Ohio-1615) (supports standards for deviation in child-support orders)
- Qi v. Yang, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2012-CA-24 (2012-Ohio-5542) (emphasizes need for findings when deviating from basic support schedule)
- Lenoir v. Paschal, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23732 (2010-Ohio-2922) (trial court abuse for not following statutorily mandated procedures)