2020 Ohio 576
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- J.H., born Aug. 2012, was adjudicated a dependent in Mar. 2013; on Apr. 4, 2014 legal custody was granted to paternal aunt S.W.; no child-support order was entered then.
- Cuyahoga County OCSS moved to intervene and establish support on Aug. 15, 2018 under R.C. 2151.231 and related statutes.
- A magistrate held a hearing on Feb. 25, 2019; Mother waived counsel but did not appear; no transcript is in the record on appeal.
- On Mar. 28, 2019 the magistrate recommended minimum child support of $50/month from each parent under R.C. 3119.06, declined to impute income because the parents received SSI, and allocated future health-care costs between parents.
- Mother filed objections 15 days after the magistrate’s decision (untimely under Juv.R. 40); the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision and Mother appealed, arguing custody to a third party and Mother’s SSI made the order improper.
- The appellate court reviewed only for plain error (because objections were untimely), found no plain error, and affirmed the child-support order.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | OCSS / Juvenile Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent can be ordered to pay child support when a third party has legal custody | Mother: Legal custody by aunt (S.W.) precludes imposing support on Mother | OCSS/Juvenile Ct: Parental duty to support remains; R.C. 3119.07(C) requires support orders even when child lives with a third-party legal custodian | Court: Held parental duty remains; custody by third party does not bar child support; affirmed |
| Whether ordering minimum support from a parent whose only apparent income is SSI was improper | Mother: SSI cannot be treated as a financial resource; court should have exercised discretion to reduce support to zero or below statutory minimum | OCSS/Juvenile Ct: R.C. 3119.06 contemplates minimum orders and includes rules for obligors on need‑based public assistance; magistrate did not treat SSI as income but imposed minimum order in discretion | Court: Held no plain error in imposing minimum order; R.C. 3119.06 allows minimum orders even when obligor receives need‑based assistance; absence of transcript prevents showing erroneous exercise of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard for child-support matters)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error review in civil cases requires extreme rarity and manifests miscarriage of justice)
- In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 2019) (distinguishes general parental duty to support from specific court‑imposed support decrees)
- Paton v. Paton, 91 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2001) (SSI benefits received by a child are not a financial resource for deviation from basic child-support schedule)
- In re A.F.R., 108 N.E.3d 1107 (Ohio 2018) (date of issuance of magistrate’s decision triggers the 14‑day period to file objections under Juv.R. 40)