2019 Ohio 5315
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Sean A. Short (father) and Michelle E. Short, now Michelle Richardson (mother), divorced in 2011; the original decree used a child-support worksheet that produced guideline support but deviated child support to $0 based on division of parenting time and expenses.
- Parties entered a shared-parenting plan; mother later filed (Dec. 2015) motions to modify parental allocation and child support alleging nonpayment and parenting-time violations; father sought additional parenting time.
- An evidentiary hearing was held Oct. 17, 2017; testimony and exhibits on income, expense sharing, and parenting time were admitted; the trial court’s Oct. 23, 2017 entry addressed visitation but did not include required child-support worksheet or statutory findings.
- This court in Short I remanded, directing the trial court to issue a child-support decision that includes a worksheet and, if deviating, the statutory findings required by R.C. 3119.22/3119.79.
- After remand the trial court held a Dec. 21, 2018 proceeding (no transcript in record), received competing proposed journal entries, and on March 12, 2019 adopted father’s proposed entry calculating guideline support (~$286.99/child) but deviating to $0 based on extended parenting time (50/50), income disparity, and equal division of extracurricular expenses.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) denial of due process / no further evidentiary hearing and improper adoption of father’s proposed entry, and (2) legal error/abuse of discretion in deviating support to $0 without proper findings or evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand required a new evidentiary hearing / whether mother was denied due process | Mother: remand and trial judge’s comments deprived her of opportunity to be heard and indicated court would adopt her proposed entry but did not | Father: remand required only a legally sufficient journal entry based on the existing record; mother had full opportunity at the Oct. 2017 hearing and to object to proposed entries | Court: No due process violation; remand did not mandate a new hearing and the record sufficed to allow the court to comply with remand instructions |
| Whether the trial court had to make an express "change of circumstances" finding to modify support | Mother: court failed to expressly find a change of circumstances and thus erred | Father: statutes (R.C. 3119.79/3119.22) do not require an express label; recalculation and the ten-percent test operate as the change-of-circumstance trigger | Court: No abuse; statutory framework does not require an express "change" finding—recalculation and deviation analysis satisfied the requirement |
| Whether deviation to $0 lacked statutory findings or evidentiary support | Mother: deviation unjustified and not supported by evidence from Oct. 2017 hearing | Father: court entered the recalculated worksheet and listed deviation factors (extended parenting time, income disparity, equal expense division) supported by record | Court: Findings meet R.C. 3119.22/3119.23 requirements and are supported by competent, credible evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether "extended parenting time" was improperly treated as an automatic credit | Mother: shared parenting does not entitle an automatic credit for parenting time | Father: court relied on extended parenting time as one of several permissible deviation factors, not an automatic statutory credit | Court: Pauly prohibits an automatic credit; here the court used extended parenting time as a permissible case-by-case deviation factor and did not apply an automatic credit |
Key Cases Cited
- DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535 (statutory ten-percent recalculation test for modifying child support)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (shared-parenting does not create an automatic child-support credit; court must evaluate case-by-case)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (deviations from guidelines require full statutory compliance)
- Marker v. Grimm, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (same principle: strict compliance for deviations)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (abuse-of-discretion standard for child-support determinations)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (due process requires reasonable opportunity to be heard)