Yant v. Roebuck
2017 Ohio 2591
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother Alivea Yant gave birth to A.Y. in Sept. 2014; Putnam County CSEA filed a paternity/child-support complaint; genetic testing established appellant Aaron Roebuck as the biological father.
- Hearing held July 27, 2016; Roebuck consented to paternity and testified he lost employment in Nov. 2015; Yant testified she left full-time work to attend school in Jan. 2015.
- Income evidence: Roebuck earned $19,363.93 (2013), $37,718.59 (2014), $22,857.53 (2015), and $0 (2016). Yant had low/zero income in 2015–2016.
- Trial court initially entered an order imputing minimum wage income of $15,080 to Yant and later issued a worksheet and final entry ordering Roebuck to pay $334.42/month child support (plus admin fee).
- Roebuck appealed, arguing (1) inadequate findings, (2) error in using $15,080 minimum wage, (3) erroneous finding he was voluntarily unemployed, and (4) improper calculation of his gross/potential income; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yant/CSEA) | Defendant's Argument (Roebuck) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred using $15,080 as imputed minimum wage for Yant | Imputation of minimum wage is proper under R.C. 3119.01(C)(11) to calculate child support | Trial court erred by using the federal minimum wage amount ($15,080) instead of Ohio minimum wage ($16,848) | Court: Using federal minimum wage was an acceptable, ascertainable standard; no abuse of discretion — overruled |
| Whether trial court failed to make sufficient findings to permit appellate review | Trial court’s entries and worksheet sufficiently show basis for calculations; no Civ.R. 52 request was made | Trial court failed to state specific findings re: which minimum wage was used and why | Court: Roebuck did not request written findings under Civ.R. 52; trial court not required to provide them sua sponte; first assignment overruled |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in finding Roebuck voluntarily unemployed | Court may impute income when a parent voluntarily underemploys; factors considered support imputation | Roebuck claimed he made reasonable job-search efforts and could not find suitable employment; 2016 zero income should be considered | Court: Trial court reasonably found Roebuck voluntarily unemployed (prior work, skills, testimony that he stayed home to care for other children); finding supported by record |
| Whether trial court properly calculated Roebuck’s gross/potential income (averaging years) | Averaging 2013–2015 income and excluding 2016 zero prevents obligor from benefiting from voluntary unemployment | Roebuck argued averaging should include 2016 zero, lowering imputed income | Court: It was appropriate to average 2013–2015 and exclude 2016 because 2016 reflected voluntary unemployment; calculation not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is applied only in rare circumstances to avoid miscarriage of justice)
- Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220 (1985) (standard for prejudicial error in civil appeals)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion defined as more than error of law or judgment)
- Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108 (1993) (child support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Marek v. Marek, 158 Ohio App.3d 750 (2004) (appellate deference to trial court on child support matters)
- Woloch v. Foster, 98 Ohio App.3d 806 (1994) (voluntary underemployment test considers whether change was made with due regard to income-producing abilities and duty to support)