Parrick v. Parrick
2013 Ohio 422
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Illinois Court issued a child support order in 2000 for two children; Brittany’s support ceased when she began college in 2009.
- A 2009 stipulation increased Mikaela’s support to $537 biweekly plus 20% of any net bonus; parental educational expenses were also shared.
- Paul and Jacqueline moved to Ohio; Illinois order was registered in Hancock County, Ohio, in 2010 for enforcement.
- Paul sought modification in 2010 based on changed circumstances; the magistrate found no substantial change beyond a modest income increase.
- Jacqueline’s income was determined to be $73,418.06 for 2010, with certain deposits deemed non-income reimbursements; disputes over income deposits were resolved.
- Trial court ultimately held the Illinois order remains fair and enforceable; Ohio had not assumed exclusive jurisdiction and enforcement would continue through Hancock County CSEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied modification under UIFSA and applied Ohio law | Parrick argues ten percent deviation warrants modification under R.C. 3119.79(A). | Parrick contends Ohio law should govern modification of a registered foreign order. | Court affirmed denial; no abuse of discretion; no independent change of circumstances. |
| Whether employer expense reimbursements should be counted as income | Jacqueline’s reimbursements should be included as income to adjust support. | Reimbursements were not income; deposits were primarily expense reimbursements. | Court upheld exclusion of reimbursements from income; no material change in circumstances. |
| Whether Ohio should assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction after partial modification | Registration and modification in Ohio should shift jurisdiction to Ohio. | Illinois retains exclusive jurisdiction; modification did not occur. | Court concluded registration/enforcement through Ohio does not modify the order or transfer exclusive jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Cumba-Ortiz, 116 Ohio St.3d 279 (2007) (UIFSA framework and national standards for child-support orders)
- Adams v. Adams, 2012-Ohio-5131 (2012) (substantial change contemplated by agreement required for modification)
- Adams v. Sirmans, 2008-Ohio-5400 (2008) (deviations from standard schedules require substantial, unanticipated changes)
- Green v. Tarkington, 2010-Ohio-2165 (2010) (ten percent deviation and changes in parenting time considered in modifications)
- Bonner v. Bonner, 2005-Ohio-6173 (2005) (deviations from schedules require not be deemed modification unless undeveloped changes)
- Steggeman v. Steggeman, 2007-Ohio-5482 (2007) (case-law context on modification standards for cross-state orders)