Lathan v. Andrews
2017 Ohio 4419
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents: Kenyunus Andrews (Father, appellant, child support obligor) and Sharnae Lathan (Mother, residential parent) for minor S.L.
- CSEA administratively recommended revised support of $878.08/month (adjustment hearing 2013); Father objected, asserting among other things that Mother’s claimed child-care expenses were unsupported.
- Magistrate upheld administrative calculation (2014); initial appeal dismissed for lack of final appealable order; trial court later entered a new order and granted Father a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- At the 2016 new-trial hearing Mother testified and submitted documentary evidence (including a letter from her child-care provider); neither the provider nor Mother’s estranged father testified.
- Magistrate produced two worksheets: $878.08/month for 8/1/2013–12/31/2014, and $645.67/month beginning 1/1/2015; trial court sustained objections only as to credits for other children, but upheld the $878.08 finding for the earlier period.
- Father appealed pro se, arguing (1) insufficient proof of child-care payments and (2) that child-care was not a work/education-related expense; both assignments were overruled and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s claimed child-care payments were proven and properly included in support calculation | Evidence insufficient: provider didn’t testify; only a notarized letter was submitted; receipts required | Mother testified and submitted documentary evidence (including provider’s letter); trial court found her testimony credible | Court affirmed trial court’s exercise of discretion; Father failed to develop/cite legal authority and cannot fault trial court for relying on Mother’s credible testimony and submitted evidence |
| Whether child-care qualified as a work- or education-related expense under R.C. 3119.022 | Mother did not need child-care (Mother did not work; college classes were daytime/part-time) so expense should not be included | Mother attended college during some relevant period and claimed child-care for that time | Court declined to reach merits: Father forfeited the argument by not raising it in objections to the magistrate’s 2016 decision; no plain-error argument was made |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (child support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (abuse of discretion defined: more than error of judgment)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)