2018 Ohio 3316
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Unmarried parents: Mother (residential parent) and Father (Jeffrey Morrow) of two daughters; younger has Down syndrome and special needs.
- Father sought reallocation of parental rights/shared parenting and child-support modification in 2014; Mother sought restriction of Father’s parenting time after alleged abusive incidents.
- During a 2015 trip the older daughter disclosed past physical abuse by Father and expressed fear of returning to his custody; guardian ad litem changed recommendation to restrict/avoid unsupervised visitation and urged counseling.
- Trial court (adopting magistrate) found a substantial change of circumstances but kept Mother as residential parent, ordered reunification counseling, and limited Father to supervised parenting time to be expanded per the reunification professional; Father could petition for specific parenting time only after counseling concluded.
- Court found Father had understated income; after credibility findings it included employer-paid benefits (health insurance, cell phone, vehicle, attorney fees) in gross income and imputed additional income for voluntary underemployment, resulting in increased child-support obligation.
- On appeal, the Ninth District affirmed most custody and income findings but reversed in part: it held the trial court abused discretion by delegating expansion of parenting time entirely to the reunification professional and remanded for clarification; it upheld inclusion of employer-paid benefits and the imputation of income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morrow) | Defendant's Argument (Becker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court unreasonably limited/terminated Father's parenting time and improperly delegated expansion to reunification professional | Trial court unlawfully suspended/abrogated its duty by leaving expansion of parenting time solely to reunification professional and by requiring Father to wait until counseling concluded to petition | Limitations were justified by abuse allegations, guardian ad litem report, and in-camera interview; reunification counseling appropriate before expanded access | Court: No abuse of discretion in limiting/terminating parenting time given record; but abused discretion by delegating final decision entirely to reunification professional — remand to clarify parenting-time terms and provide court oversight |
| Whether employer-paid health insurance and other employer-paid benefits (cell phone, vehicle, attorney fees) should be included in Father’s gross income for child-support | Benefits and attorney fees should not be included (or at least attorney-fee figure unsupported); inclusion would be improper | Employer-paid benefits are part of Father’s compensation and may be included; facts show recurring payments in lieu of salary and credibility issues support inclusion | Court: Inclusion of employer-paid health insurance and attorney fees as gross income was within trial court discretion under statutory definition and prior precedent; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in imputing substantial income for voluntary underemployment | Father’s reduced salary was voluntary but justified by employer/college financial troubles; imputation unsupported | Father manipulated salary and retained substantial employer-paid benefits; evidence supports finding of voluntary underemployment and imputation | Court: Trial court’s finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed and imputation of $33,601 was not against manifest weight of the evidence and was within its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrow v. Becker, 138 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 2013) (statutory definition of gross income for child-support is expansive and may include employer-provided benefits)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (1993) (appellate review of imputed income is deferential; imputation is discretionary)