Tellis v. Tellis
2021 Ohio 1976
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Parties married in 2012 and had two children (born 2013 and 2015); Mother filed for divorce in December 2018.
- Temporary and agreed orders during pendency gave Mother exclusive use of the home and various temporary parenting/child-support arrangements; Father was found in contempt once for failing to pay daycare expenses.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed; the GAL recommended Mother as sole custodian and specifically recommended against shared parenting, citing communication problems and concerns about Father’s discipline and work-related childcare gaps.
- At trial, both parties had sought sole custody but were amenable to shared parenting as an alternative; Father's work schedule (including overtime) and proposed schedule changes were a central factual issue.
- The trial court adopted a shared-parenting plan (Father: after-school Wednesdays through Friday until 6:00 p.m., and every other Saturday 2:00 p.m.–Sunday 7:00 p.m.; Mother named residential parent for school/daycare) and ordered Father to pay $641.88/month in child support (a 15% downward deviation from guidelines). Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in allocating parenting time / awarding shared parenting rather than equal parenting time | Shared parenting (with Mother as residential parent) is appropriate given the children’s bonds, Mother’s primary day‑to‑day role, and practical benefits of Father’s adjusted work schedule | The children should have equal parenting time based on the totality of circumstances | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; shared parenting was in children’s best interest given the record and Father’s schedule adjustments |
| Whether the child support order / 15% downward deviation was improper | Requested guideline amount ($749.02/month); argued a fixed monthly order would reduce conflict and late payments | Sought to continue cost‑sharing arrangement; objected to the amount | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; downward deviation (15%) was supported by facts (time each parent spends with children and payment history) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 523 N.E.2d 846 (trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses affords deference on custody findings)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (trial court determines weight to give GAL recommendations)
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (child support decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Murray v. Murray, 128 Ohio App.3d 662, 716 N.E.2d 288 (burden to rebut guideline schedule requires evidence showing calculated award is unjust or inappropriate)
- Glassner v. Glassner, 160 Ohio App.3d 648, 828 N.E.2d 642 (equal parenting time alone does not automatically justify deviation from guideline support)
- In re Custody of Harris, 168 Ohio App.3d 1, 857 N.E.2d 1235 (discretionary nature of deviations from child support obligation)