J.S. v. T.S.
2017 Ohio 1042
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2015 with two minor children; parties had a shared parenting plan and Mother was residential parent; Father paid child support.
- Father filed contempt and modification motions after Mother failed to return children and denied parenting time; Mother alleged sexual abuse by Father as justification.
- Guardian ad litem recommended terminating the shared parenting plan and naming Father residential parent; magistrate held a hearing, found a change of circumstances, terminated the shared plan, and named Father residential parent.
- Magistrate imputed income to Mother (finding she was unemployed with a pending workers’ compensation claim and had received one $1,800 check) and used that for child support; ordered Mother pay 20% and Father 80% of uninsured health-care costs and reimburse Father for out-of-pocket expenses.
- Magistrate found Mother in contempt for denying parenting time after abuse allegations were investigated and unsubstantiated; Mother did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision or provide a transcript to the trial court.
- Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; on appeal the court reviewed only for plain error because Mother failed to timely object and failed to supply the hearing transcript to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (J.S./Father) | Defendant's Argument (T.S./Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether workers’ comp award and imputed income may be used in support calculation | Court may impute income for under/unemployed parents and consider available benefits; magistrate imputed minimum-wage income and counted $1,800 workers’ comp check | Workers’ comp award was speculative and should not be treated as income; imputation was improper | No plain error; imputation and consideration of the workers’ comp payment upheld as within discretion |
| Allocation of uninsured health-care costs and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses | Split costs proportionally to parties’ incomes (Father ~79.6%, Mother ~20.4%); reimbursement language required by statute | Mother contends contribution and reimbursement orders are unfair given her limited income | Allocation and reimbursement terms upheld as reasonable and statutorily authorized |
| Contempt for denying parenting time after abuse allegations | Investigation, GAL report, and in-camera interview did not substantiate abuse; denial unjustified | Mother claims justified defense; court failed to make sufficient factual findings | No plain error; contempt affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Effect of procedural default (failure to object / supply transcript) on appellate review | Objections and transcript were not filed to allow trial-court review; absent those, appellate review limited to plain error | Procedural default prevents meaningful review of factual findings | Appellate court limited review to plain error and treated magistrate’s factual findings as established; affirmed decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard governs child support matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for finding an abuse of discretion)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain error in civil cases is disfavored and to be applied sparingly)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (trial court has discretion to impute income for child support calculations)