In re K.R.B.
2017 Ohio 7071
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Unmarried parents A.G. (mother) and K.B. (father) share one child, born 2007; parents executed a shared parenting agreement in 2011 that the juvenile court adopted, providing joint custody, alternating tax exemptions, equal sharing of extracurricular costs, and no child support between them.
- In 2015 both parents moved to modify and/or show cause; disputes included relocation notices, communication, extracurricular enrollments, parenting-time interference, and medical/psychological care.
- After an April 2016 hearing, the juvenile court kept shared parenting, slightly adjusted the parenting-time schedule, and indicated child support would be set in a separate entry based on submitted income information.
- On September 21, 2016 the court designated the father as the child-support obligor, attached a child-support worksheet (showing father’s presumed annual obligation higher than the mother’s after adjustments), then deviated downward and ordered the father to pay $2,697 annually, with split medical/out-of-pocket shares.
- Father appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) designating him the obligor without findings explaining why and (2) misapplying R.C. 3119.23 factors in calculating/deviating from the worksheet.
Issues
| Issue | K.B. (father) Argument | A.G. (mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in designating the father the child-support obligor without making findings explaining that designation | Court designated obligor without required findings; designation is a deviation requiring explanation; father has roughly equal parenting time, lower income, and other children | Designation was not a deviation; court properly exercised discretion to order child support in shared-parenting context | Reversed: court abused discretion by designating father obligor without explaining basis; record lacks facts showing why father was chosen |
| Whether the child-support amount and deviation were supported by findings and evidence | Court misapplied R.C. 3119.23 factors and relied on incomplete/unspecified income/exhibit info, producing unsupported deviation | Court considered R.C. 3119.23 factors and properly reduced the worksheet amount as unjust/inappropriate | Reversed in part: juvenile court failed to provide sufficient findings and record support for deviation and amount; child-support order vacated and remanded for hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Depalmo v. Depalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (Ohio 1997) (trial court must journalize findings when deviating from child-support worksheet)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (standards for child-support determinations and deviations)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (appellate review of child-support orders for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 1997) (time-sharing under shared parenting is only one factor in support determinations)
- Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 160 Ohio App.3d 564 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (magistrate/trial court must explain initial designation of obligor in shared-parenting contexts)