Smith v. Smith
2016 Ohio 8164
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Craig and Olga Smith divorced in 2006; one child, Nikolai (b. 4/21/2001). They had an agreed shared-parenting plan but engaged in repeated post-divorce litigation.
- Father obtained ex parte emergency custody in April 2013; subsequently the matter was referred to a magistrate and a multi-day hearing occurred in Sept. 2014 with testimony, psychologist report (Dr. Tarpey), and guardian ad litem (GAL) report admitted.
- The magistrate (Feb. 4, 2015) terminated the shared-parenting plan, named Father sole custodial/residential parent, set child-support amounts (including retroactive periods), ordered Mother to maintain health/vision/dental insurance, allocated medical expense cost-sharing, and allowed Father to claim the child for tax purposes while Mother owed arrearages.
- Mother filed 14 objections; trial court (Feb. 19, 2016) reviewed and denied/dismissed all objections and adopted the magistrate's decision.
- Mother appealed pro se, raising six assignments of error challenging child support calculation, insurance obligation, unpaid medical expenses/contempt, the magistrate's finding about parents’ inability to encourage contact, tax deductions, and reliance on Dr. Tarpey for custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Olga) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child support calculation | Magistrate correctly computed support based on evidence at hearing | Olga lost job after trial; challenges calculation and requests deviation | Court affirmed: calculation based on trial record; no abuse of discretion |
| Health insurance obligation | Father notes parties stipulated Mother would maintain coverage at hearing | Mother claims she lost employer coverage after trial and Father could provide insurance | Court affirmed magistrate: obligation reflected in parties’ stipulation; no plain error |
| Medical expenses / arrearages & contempt | Father submitted exhibits and testimony of out-of-pocket expenses; seeks reimbursement and contempt finding | Mother contends Father failed to sufficiently document expenses | Court affirmed: Father presented competent evidence; Mother had not paid; no abuse of discretion |
| Custody, parental encouragement, and tax deduction | Father sought sole custody; GAL and Dr. Tarpey recommended Father; magistrate found neither parent encourages child’s relationship with other parent; awarded Father custody and tax deduction while Mother owes arrears | Mother contends Dr. Tarpey’s evaluation was unreliable and argues Father didn’t request sole custody; objects to findings about encouragement and tax award | Court affirmed: ample evidence (psychologist report, GAL, testimony) supports custody change, finding on parental conduct, and tax allocation; objections waived except for plain error, which was not found |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (trial court must undertake independent review of magistrate report)
- Knauer v. Keener, 143 Ohio App.3d 789 (trial court may not simply defer to magistrate during de novo review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard and definition)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain error doctrine in civil cases is disfavored and narrowly applied)
- Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386 (appellate review will not disturb child support order absent abuse of discretion)