2016 Ohio 6961
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother filed a motion (July 31, 2014) to increase child support, citing higher childcare/education expenses and changed incomes; Father sought increased parenting time. Hearing held Jan 29, 2015.
- Child R.H. (age 5) attends "Mini University" (M.U.); Mother pays $398/month which she described as pre-K tuition/daycare; the child has an IEP through Kettering City Schools. Mother works ~36 hrs/week as a nursing assistant and provides health insurance for the child.
- Father is the beneficiary of three irrevocable discretionary trusts administered by KeyBank; trustees approve distributions. In 2014 the trusts disbursed ≈ $73,000 to cover Father’s needs (including his child support), but the trust’s reported annual income was only ≈ $3,500–$4,000 and the trusts will not vest until Father is 50.
- Magistrate imputed minimum-wage income to Father (because trust K-1 showed ≈ $4,000) and denied Mother’s request to include the $73,000 trust disbursements as gross income; magistrate also denied daycare expense inclusion because Mother did not segregate day‑care costs from preschool tuition.
- Juvenile court sustained in part and overruled in part the magistrate; it adopted a phased supervisory parenting-time plan for Father and agreed there was not a substantial change in circumstances to modify child support or to include the claimed daycare expenses. Mother appealed, raising two assignments of error (trust distributions as income; daycare costs inclusion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary trust disbursements (≈ $73,000 in 2014) must be treated as Father’s "gross income" for child‑support calculation or lead to imputation of income equal to those disbursements | Trust distributions were used to support Father (including paying his child support); R.C. 3119.01(C)(7) includes trust income and potential cash flow — Mother urged imputation of $73,000 (or $89,000 combined with imputed wages) | Father lacks control/vested right to corpus or automatic distributions; trust distributions are discretionary, approved by trustees and fiduciary board; trust generated only ~$3,500–$4,000 income (K‑1), so only that income (and imputed minimum wage) is appropriate | Court affirmed: discretionary trust disbursements were not "gross income" or potential cash flow here because Father had no unrestricted access; trial court properly relied on trust K‑1 income (~$3,500–$4,000) and imputed minimum wage. No substantial change in circumstances shown to modify support. |
| Whether Mother proved daycare expenses (work‑related) that must be included on child‑support worksheet | Mother pays $398/month to M.U. (pre‑K/daycare mix) and needs daycare while working; trial court has discretion to include reasonable work‑related childcare | Father: Mother failed to prove daycare vs. preschool costs and did not present separate evidence of daycare expenses | Court affirmed: Mother failed to prove the specific daycare component or amount; M.U. statement showed pre‑K tuition, and IEP services are through public school; court did not abuse discretion in excluding the claimed $398/month from the support worksheet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. Howell, 855 N.E.2d 533 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court may include potential cash flow/inheritances as gross income when beneficiary has control or could convert assets to income; prevents avoidance of support by shifting income to future cash flow)
- Matthews v. Matthews, 450 N.E.2d 278 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trust beneficiary’s interest may be reached for child‑support judgments where trust provides for beneficiary’s reasonable support; children may attach beneficiary’s income interest)
- Martin v. Martin, 374 N.E.2d 1384 (Ohio 1978) (trust providing standards for trustees’ discretion is not purely discretionary; trustee may be required to exercise discretion for beneficiary’s support)