2020 Ohio 4623
Ohio2020Background
- In 2001 Greene County Juvenile Court ordered Chalmer Brown to pay child support for K.M. (originally $87/month).
- K.M. was emancipated effective September 13, 2017; the juvenile court later entered an arrearages payment order in December 2017.
- In January 2018 the State charged Brown under former R.C. 2919.21(B) for nonpayment during July–December 2016 (Count I) and January–September 2017 (Count II).
- Brown moved to dismiss; the municipal court relied on State v. Pittman and dismissed because K.M. was emancipated when charges were filed.
- The Second District reversed, distinguishing Pittman because Brown’s alleged nonpayment occurred while a support order was in effect; it certified a conflict with the Eleventh District (Hubbard).
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Second District: R.C. 2919.21(B) permits prosecution for failures that occurred while a support order was in effect even if the child is emancipated when charges are filed, provided the statute of limitations and other statutory elements are satisfied.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2919.21(B) permits prosecution when charged after the child’s emancipation for nonpayment that occurred while a support order was in effect | The offense is committed when nonpayment occurs while a support order "is" in effect; emancipation at time of charging is irrelevant if the underlying conduct occurred during the order and the statute of limitations has not run | Pittman requires charges to be filed while a support order is currently in effect; emancipation before charging ends criminal liability under R.C. 2919.21(B) | Held for the State: prosecution is allowed if the nonpayment occurred while the support order was in effect and other elements (including limitations) are met; Pittman is distinguishable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pittman, 79 N.E.3d 531 (Ohio 2016) (held that charges based on arrearage orders entered after emancipation were invalid because the defendant was not under a current support obligation)
- State v. Hubbard, 119 N.E.3d 798 (11th Dist. 2018) (vacated convictions under R.C. 2919.21(B) relying on Pittman where charges were filed after emancipation)
- State v. Straley, 11 N.E.3d 1175 (Ohio 2014) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)