In re J.S., 2016 Ohio 7903

Mother (Sawitke) located father (Khan) after many years and obtained a 2013 agreed entry establishing paternity and a child-support arrearage (~$50,000 initially; about $20,000 at contempt hearing).
The agreed entry required Khan to provide "some surety" that, in the event of his death, the arrearage would be paid (e.g., name Sawitke beneficiary of life insurance or create a trust) and to provide proof of that surety.
Khan failed to produce an insurance policy or other clear proof of surety for ~20 months after the agreed entry. At a 2015 contempt hearing, Khan produced multiple (four) change-of-beneficiary forms, all dated the same day but naming different beneficiaries and listing different State Farm policy numbers and addresses.
Magistrate found Khan in civil contempt, ordered a suspended 10-day jail sentence conditioned on producing a declaration page and beneficiary designation showing at least $20,000 face value naming Sawitke. Trial court adopted the magistrate and overruled Khan’s objections.
Khan appealed, arguing (1) the post-hearing "superseding" beneficiary form should control, (2) he substantially complied with the agreed entry, and (3) the insurance agent’s letter corroborated his proof of surety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by rejecting Khan’s post‑hearing "superseding" beneficiary form	Sawitke: multiple inconsistent forms create uncertainty; court properly rejected conflicting evidence	Khan: the form filed with his motion to reopen was the last designation and thus controlling proof of surety	Court: No abuse of discretion; inconsistent forms and conflicting policy numbers made Khan’s proof unreliable
Whether Khan substantially complied with the agreed entry requiring surety	Sawitke: no reliable proof of an enforceable surety was produced; noncompliance shown	Khan: produced beneficiary designations and agent letter showing he had an insurance policy; thus substantially complied	Court: Found noncompliance by clear and convincing evidence; substantial compliance not established
Whether the insurance agent’s letter proved the required surety	Sawitke: agent letter contradicted beneficiary form and did not resolve policy-number discrepancies	Khan: agent letter identified his policy and supported his claim he had provided surety	Court: Letter undermined by mismatched policy numbers and unresolved inconsistencies; did not establish proof of surety

State v. Chavez–Juarez, 185 Ohio App.3d 189 (discussion of civil vs. criminal contempt and purpose-based test)
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (distinguishing civil and criminal contempt; sanction purposes)