Myers v. Brewer
2017 Ohio 4324
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2009 and adopted a shared parenting plan for three children (b. 2002, 2004, 2006); plan modified in 2011 giving Father residential parenting during school year and Mother summer parenting; Mother originally ordered to pay child support.
- Father later relocated to Darke County, Ohio; both parents filed motions in 2015–2016 to terminate or modify the shared parenting plan; GAL was appointed and hearings were held.
- Magistrate recommended continuing shared parenting with modifications: rotating week-to-week time for the two youngest, Father primary residential parent for school purposes and primary weekday custody of the oldest child; magistrate named Father child-support obligor and calculated $414.56/month with a 35% deviation for the oldest child.
- Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in full, overruled both parties’ objections, and designated Father as the child support obligor based on income disparity and children’s best interests.
- On appeal Father challenged (1) designation as obligor despite shared parenting and residential-parent status for school, (2) denial of a downward deviation for the two youngest children despite equal parenting time, and (3) the trial court’s failure to journal the pre-deviation annual obligation and findings as required by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (Brewer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by naming Father the child-support obligor | Mother argued supporting designation based on income disparity and children’s best interests | Father argued he should not be designated obligor because he is residential parent for school and has majority time with children | Court: No abuse of discretion; designation permissible where incomes are disparate and guideline methods followed |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing a downward deviation for equal parenting time (two youngest) | Mother argued guideline amount appropriate; deviation unnecessary | Father argued equal shared time with two youngest warranted downward deviation or credit | Court: No error; equal parenting time alone does not require deviation; court may consider multiple factors (income disparity, expenses) and found deviation unjustified |
| Whether trial court failed to comply with R.C. requirement to journal pre-deviation annual obligation and findings | Mother maintained court’s entry adequate except as noted | Father asserted omission of the worksheet’s annual obligation and required findings | Court: Affirmed merits but remanded for limited correction — trial court must journal the original annual obligation, the deviation amount, and the actual obligation after deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (abuse-of-discretion standard for child support review)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (no automatic credit for shared parenting time in support calculations)
- Hubin v. Hubin, 92 Ohio St.3d 240 (shared parenting does not mandate worksheet offset)
- Fallang v. Fallang, 109 Ohio App.3d 543 (designating higher-earning parent as obligor in shared parenting situations can be appropriate)
- Glassner v. Glassner, 160 Ohio App.3d 648 (equal parenting time alone insufficient to justify deviation)
- Murray v. Murray, 128 Ohio App.3d 662 (burden to rebut guideline presumption rests with party seeking deviation)