2022 Ohio 648
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Married in 2009; two children (born 2011 and 2013). Divorce final hearing Feb 2021 after agreed shared-parenting plan but disputed support and expense allocation.
- Shared parenting: repeating 28-day schedule with Father having more overnight stays (18 vs. 10 during the school-cycle) and designated residential parent for school purposes; daytime custody is roughly equal.
- Father: GE software engineer with $133,569 base salary and significant variable bonuses ($8k in 2018; $22k in 2019; $32k in 2020). Mother: pediatric nurse earning roughly $72k–$91k (w-2/paystub figures), works three 12‑hour shifts/week and received employer benefits.
- Trial court found Mother employed to full capacity (declined imputing income), calculated incomes for child‑support worksheet (averaged Father’s bonus for child‑support calculations), and applied statutory deviations for extended parenting time.
- Trial court orders: Father pay child support $819.23/month (after 10% statutory deviation plus additional deviation), and spousal support $720/month plus 30% of Father’s gross bonus for 42 months; extracurricular expenses split by income share (Father ~64%; Mother ~36%).
- Father appealed, arguing (1) misdesignation as child‑support obligor, (2) inadequate deviation (should be $0), and (3) erroneous spousal support award; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Designation of child‑support obligor in shared‑parenting | Father spent more overnights / is residential parent for school; court gave no explanation for naming him obligor | Court relied on statutory guidelines, income disparity, and parenting‑time pattern; designation permissible | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; statute does not require obligor be the parent with fewer overnights and record supports designation (Father earns substantially more; daytime care is roughly equal). |
| 2) Adequacy of deviation from guideline child support (should be $0) | Given extended parenting time, spousal support payments, Mother’s alleged underemployment, activity‑cost allocation and prior stepchild support, child support should be reduced to $0 | Court applied 10% statutory reduction for >90 overnights and an additional deviation for extended parenting time; considered spousal support and denied further reduction | Affirmed. Court’s deviations (resulting in $819.23/mo) were reasonable; Mother not found voluntarily underemployed; Father’s overnight advantage did not justify $0 support. |
| 3) Award of spousal support | Mother voluntarily underemployed and bonuses were double‑counted; spousal award and bonus‑percentage unsupported | Court balanced R.C. 3105.18 factors, declined to impute additional income to Mother, treated bonus differently for spousal vs. child‑support purposes | Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion awarding $720/mo plus 30% of Father’s gross bonus for 42 months; no double‑counting and sufficient consideration of statutory factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (trial court has wide discretion in child‑support matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard defined)
- Fallang v. Fallang, 109 Ohio App.3d 543 (12th Dist. 1996) (designating higher‑earning parent obligor in shared parenting not per se abuse)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (spousal‑support orders must indicate basis to allow review)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1993) (trial courts may impute income for voluntary underemployment)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 65 Ohio App.3d 800 (11th Dist. 1989) (prior support of an emancipated stepchild does not reduce child support for other children)