2019 Ohio 3312
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother (Julee K.) and Father (Mark S.) had one child, L.B.S., born 2014; they never married; custody/child-support disputes began in 2015.
- Magistrate ordered psychological/custody evaluations by Dr. Marianne Bowden for both parents; Dr. Bowden testified and recommended Mother be residential parent; shared parenting was not recommended.
- Magistrate awarded Mother sole residential custody, monthly child support (~$1,912.03), the tax dependency exemption, and denied Mother’s request for attorney fees; magistrate ordered Father to pay Dr. Bowden’s fees and evaluation costs.
- Both parties objected on multiple grounds (child-support calculation, allocation of evaluation costs, tax exemption, exclusion/strike of expert testimony, attorney fees, due process/equal protection); trial court overruled objections and entered judgment; appeals were consolidated.
- Key contested legal points on appeal: how to calculate Father’s gross income (add-back of depreciation and averaging across years), allocation of evaluation costs, allocation of the federal dependency exemption, admissibility/strike of Dr. Bowden’s testimony, and denial of Mother’s attorney-fee claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Father) | Defendant's Argument (Father/Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child-support calculation: add-back of depreciation and averaging income over 2012–2014 | Mother: support should be calculated from court’s gross-income determination (did not directly contest add-backs). | Father: court improperly added depreciation back to his income and erred by averaging inconsistent years (2012–2014), overstating income. | Court: no abuse of discretion. Trial court permissibly added back depreciation where Father failed to show depreciation represented contemporaneous cash expenses and permissibly averaged income because earnings were unpredictable. |
| Allocation of psychological evaluation and witness fees | Mother: evaluation ordered for both; fees properly allocated per court order (Court found Father has greater ability to pay). | Father: Mother subpoenaed Dr. Bowden and should pay her portion; Father should not bear whole cost. | Court: no abuse of discretion in ordering Father (higher-earning parent) to pay the evaluation and witness fees. |
| Allocation of federal dependency exemption | Father: higher earning potential yields net tax savings; exemption should go to Father. | Mother: residential parent presumptively entitled to exemption. | Court: presumption favored residential parent; Father failed to present evidence of net tax benefit or address statutory factors; allocation to Mother affirmed. |
| Motion to strike/exclude Dr. Bowden’s testimony (alleged conflict/bias) | Father: Dr. Bowden had undisclosed conflicts and bias; testimony should be excluded. | Mother: Dr. Bowden was an appropriate forensic evaluator; her prior limited work for Mother’s counsel did not disqualify her. | Court: denied strike; even if testimony excluded, the written evaluation (admitted) remained unchallenged; Father did not preserve or adequately raise Evid.R. 702 or statutory conflict arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.W., 114 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2007) (civil rules apply to juvenile custody proceedings and reversible error requires showing prejudice)