Melick v. Melick
2013 Ohio 1418
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jeffrey Melick and Therese Melick divorced in 2003; Therese was the residential parent under a shared parenting plan.
- Father had weekend visitation and up to three weeks of vacation; child support set at $1,000 per month.
- In 2007, an agreed entry increased Father’s visitation and kept the same support but reduced vacation time.
- Mother filed a show-cause in 2010 for Father’s failure to Exercise vacation time; 2010–2011 hearings occurred; magistrate ordered Father to exercise all time.
- In 2011–2012, Mother moved to modify child support based on income changes and greater child-care costs due to cessation of overnight visitation; Magistrate increased support; Father appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification standard applied correctly? | Melick argues magistrate biased; standard misapplied. | Melick asserts no bias; record insufficient to show disqualification warranted. | Overruled; denial not abuse of discretion. |
| Was there a substantial change of circumstances to modify support? | Melick contends no substantial change. | Melick contends court properly found substantial change. | Overruled; substantial change found. |
| Proper use of RC 3119.04(B) when combined income exceeds 150k? | Melick argues for $150k-equivalent base before deviation. | Melick argues worksheet-based base is permissible when over $150k. | Overruled; no plain error; worksheet use acceptable. |
| Upward deviation of about 80% was in the best interest of the child? | Melick argues trial court erred; evidence supports Mother’s interest, not child’s. | Melick contends deviation is justified by child care needs and parental time changes. | Overruled; evidence supports best interest and deviation; not against weight or law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (distinguishes sufficiency vs. weight of evidence)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain error only in exceptional civil cases)
- Zeitler v. Zeitler, 9th Dist. No. 04CA008444, 2004-Ohio-5551 (9th Dist. 2004) (no requirement to apply worksheet when over $150k)
- Bajzer v. Bajzer, 9th Dist. No. 25635, 2012-Ohio-252 (9th Dist. 2012) (case-by-case approach for high-income child support)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (weight vs. sufficiency standard distinction)
- Barnett-Soto v Soto, 2003-Ohio-535 (9th Dist. 2003) (presumption of magistrate's neutrality; need for evidence of bias)