In re Marriage of Heidnik, 2013 Ohio 1289

Petition for dissolution filed in 2006; parties have two children, C.H. and J.H.
Shared Parenting Plan and Separation Agreement incorporated into the 2006 Decree
Initial child support under the plan was $217.38 per month per child; post-sale amount $435.47
Jeff moved in 2010 for child support modification after the children began residing with him
Magistrate’s 2011 decision designated Marsha as the obligor for child support and set retroactivity
Trial court rejected the magistrate’s decision, holding no modification without a modified parenting plan; this court reverses and remands

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a motion to modify child support requires a prior modification of the shared parenting plan	Heidnik argues no prior plan modification is required	Marsha argues a change in custodial designation is prerequisite	Remanded; court held improper to deny based on lack of plan modification without merits review
Whether the trial court erred by denying the Motion for New Trial based on lack of jurisdiction or error of law	Jeff contends governing law misapplied; merits not reached	Marsha asserts proper application of law	Remanded for reconsideration of merits and proper rulings

Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007) (modification of shared parenting plan can occur; best-interest findings required)
Kilgore v. Kilgore, 2008-Ohio-5858 (11th Dist. 2008) (custody time alone does not fix who pays support; both parents may be subject to support)
Cameron v. Cameron, 2007-Ohio-3994 (10th Dist. 2007) (shared-parenting plan elements can be modified if in best interest)
Smith v. McLaughlin, 2010-Ohio-2739 (9th Dist. 2010) (legal custody need not be altered to affect support in shared plan)
In re Seitz, 2003-Ohio-5218 (11th Dist. 2003) (voluntary waiver of jurisdiction defense not raised where merits argued)