Sypherd v. Sypherd
2021 Ohio 2490
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2021Background
- Mark Sypherd and Keli Jones divorced in 2008; their separation agreement created a shared parenting plan and ordered Mark to pay $625/month child support (a downward deviation).
- The shared-parenting schedule was later modified multiple times; Mark sought additional parenting time in 2014 and, in 2018, filed to be designated primary residential parent after children expressed a desire to spend more time with him.
- The Summit County CSEA conducted an administrative review (initiated by Mother) and recommended increasing Mark’s child support to $972.23/month; Mark requested a hearing and asked it be heard with his reallocation motion.
- At a magistrate hearing the parties agreed to increased parenting time for Mark; the magistrate issued two child-support orders (retroactive $774.67/month May 1, 2018–Jan 31, 2019; then $399.67/month from Feb 1, 2019 onward) and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Both parties filed objections to the magistrate’s child-support findings; the trial court summarily overruled all objections, stating there had not been a substantial change in circumstances and directing that prior child-support and insurance orders remain in effect.
- The Ninth District reversed and remanded: it held the trial court failed to perform the independent review required by Civ.R. 53 when ruling on objections, noted administrative modification via CSEA does not require a showing of a substantial change, sustained the relevant assignments/cross-assignments of error, and left certain issues (deviation and transcript-cost allocation) for resolution on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Sypherd's Argument | Jones's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly overruled objections without independent review and whether a substantial change is required for an administrative modification | Trial court abused discretion; substantial changes existed (income shifts, increased parenting time) and objections deserved full review | Trial court treated objections as meritless because it found no substantial change | Reversed and remanded: trial court failed to perform independent Civ.R.53 review; administrative modification does not require a substantial-change showing |
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification under R.C. 3119.79 | Mark: his income dropped, Mother’s rose, parenting time approximated 50/50 — supports modification/deviation | Mother disputed the claimed changes and/or their legal effect | Not decided on the merits — remanded for the trial court to address objections and make findings |
| Whether Mark was entitled to a deviation allocating child-raising costs per 50/50 time | Mark: increased parenting time/near-equal time warrants deviation of support | Mother opposed deviation | Moot on appeal — court declined to address pending remand |
| Whether the transcript cost should be allocated between the parties | Mother: she purchased transcript for objections and Mark benefited, so costs should be shared | Mark implicitly opposed allocation to him | Premature on appeal — court declined to decide and left allocation for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)