2019 Ohio 236
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother and Father dispute custody/parenting time for son G.B.; Michigan initially had jurisdiction but Montgomery County, Ohio juvenile court later took over. Prior appeals set shared parenting and designated Father residential parent.
- Mother filed three motions to show cause (contempt) and opposed Father’s March 15, 2017 motion for child support; the juvenile court issued an April 6, 2018 order denying contempt motions and granting child support without an evidentiary hearing.
- The court’s January 24, 2018 pretrial order required affidavits of income, medical expense documentation, and proposed parenting-time agreements; parties submitted written proposals and income affidavits instead of an oral hearing.
- The child support worksheet used three‑year averages for Mother but used an unexplained figure ($31,666.67) for Father inconsistent with his reported base or total income; Father reported no income for 2017 and various amounts for 2015–2016.
- Mother sought findings of fact and conclusions of law, a stay, and a trial after the April 6 order; the juvenile court did not rule on those post‑order motions prior to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Weprin) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt motions required an evidentiary hearing | Weprin: court abused discretion by denying contempt motions without a hearing; factual disputes existed | Father: court may resolve motions on written submissions under Juv.R.19 (implied) | Court: Abuse of discretion; reversal and remand for evidentiary hearing or an order articulating reasons |
| Whether child support order was proper without hearing on Father’s 2017 unemployment and imputation | Weprin: Due process required hearing on whether to impute income and correct income averaging; order used unexplained income figure | Father: sought support and proposed averaging of income (requested retroactive support) | Court: Abuse of discretion; remanded for evidentiary hearing on income and support calculation |
| Whether juvenile court permissibly decided matters on written submissions under Juv.R.19 | Weprin: Requested oral hearing and rule 52 findings; written submission insufficient given disputed facts | Father: relied on written proposals and affidavits submitted after pretrial order | Court: Juv.R.19 permits non‑oral resolution, but here factual disputes made the summary disposition unreasonable; hearing required |
| Whether post‑notice motions (stay, motion for trial) are properly before appellate court | Weprin: Sought stay and trial after April 6 order | Father: (implicit) filings were untimely or not recognized | Court: Those motions filed after notice of appeal were not before appellate court; appellate court nonetheless reversed/remanded trial‑court orders that lacked adequate factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrams v. Abrams, 92 N.E.3d 368 (Ohio App. 2017) (abuse of discretion standard and requirement that trial court decisions show a reasoning process)
- Mossing-Landers v. Landers, 73 N.E.3d 1060 (Ohio App. 2016) (child support reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (standard that child support begins with parental income and may include imputation)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (procedural due process balancing test)