In re S.E.
2013 Ohio 5057
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Father (N.R.) filed to establish paternity of an infant and child-support was set after a magistrate’s hearing. Mother (N.E.) was awarded legal custody; Father received parenting time.
- Father has a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering (2006) but has no employment history in that field; from 2006–2009 he did not work, and from 2009–2012 he did part-time, self-employed web‑design work with gross earnings of about $6,500–$8,500 annually.
- At the hearing Father testified he had applied to a “couple places,” believed computer-engineer pay in the Dayton area ranged from $15–$50/hour, and was seeking full‑time work but had not held an engineering job.
- The magistrate found Father voluntarily underemployed and imputed full‑time income of $25/hour ($52,000/year) for child‑support calculation.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; Father appealed, arguing the underemployment finding and the $25/hour imputation were an abuse of discretion. Mother did not file an appellate brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father was voluntarily underemployed | He was working (self‑employed) and had tried to find jobs in his field; he never held an engineering job so cannot be deemed voluntarily underemployed | Father has a degree and no substantial full‑time work history; he applied only a few places, so court may find voluntary underemployment | Court: No abuse of discretion — Father was voluntarily underemployed |
| Whether imputing income at $25/hour was proper | The $25/hour figure is unsupported; Father never earned that, his wage estimate was a guess, and the local market is poor | Trial court relied on Father’s testimony about wage range and his degree/experience to select a reasonable mid‑range figure | Court: Abuse of discretion in selecting $25/hour because no evidentiary basis for that specific figure; remanded to impute $15/hour (the bottom of Father’s stated range) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (1993) (abuse‑of‑discretion review applies to imputation of income and voluntary underemployment determinations)
