King v. King
2012 Ohio 5219
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Divorce between David King and Laura Craig (Craig) finalized in 2004 with a shared-parenting plan for two children, C.K. and E.K.
- In 2005 King moved to terminate the shared plan and seek residential parent/ custodian status, support changes, and medical-cost reimbursements; he refiled in 2006.
- Magistrate in 2006 designated King as the school-year residential parent and Craig as the summer residential parent, with compensatory time for Craig if King interfered with her time.
- King sought to set aside the magistrate’s order in 2006 and 2007, challenging custody arrangement, companionship timing, and employment requirements.
- Trial court ultimately terminated the shared plan, named Craig the residential parent, kept King’s child support, and left spousal support moot; several related appeals followed.
- Throughout 2010–2011, the trial court addressed arrears, attorney fees, and various objections; King appealed multiple judgments; certain arrears judgments were later found jurisdictionally defective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Craig should be named residential parent after termination of the shared plan | King argues for residential parent status for himself | Craig supports naming Craig as residential parent | Craig properly named residential parent; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether child-support calculations and arrears were correct | King contests calculation and arrears including health-insurance credit | Craig contends calculations and imputation were proper | Some arrearage judgment voided due to lack of jurisdiction; remaining calculations addressed on remand |
| Whether attorney-fee awards were proper | King challenges amount and reasonableness of fees for Craig | Court acted equitably given conduct and circumstances | Attorney-fee awards affirmed with partial reversal for child-support-related fees pending judgment on arrears |
| Whether the court properly denied compensatory/make-up visitation terms | King asserts he was denied compensatory time | Court found no basis for additional compensatory time given conduct | Court did not err in denying compensatory visitation requests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Strickler, 2008-Ohio-5813 (9th Dist. 2008) (remand/affirmation when reviewing magistrate decisions in custody matters)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard for civil appeals; credibility of witnesses)
- Miller v. Miller, 2008-Ohio-4297 (9th Dist. 2008) (broad discretion in awarding attorney fees; abuse of discretion standard)
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83 (1994) (abuse of discretion in custody determinations requires arbitrary, unreasonable action)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 2012-Ohio-4097 (9th Dist. 2012) (best-interest factors; weighing unworkable shared parenting)