CASSANDRA HENDRICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - DUSTIN PARRETT, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2014-01-010
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
9/15/2014
[Cite as Hendrickson v. Parrett, 2014-Ohio-3997.]
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JS 2012-0763
Bradley M. Kraemer, 4841A Rialto Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for defendant-appellant
HENDON, P.J.
OPINION
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dustin Pаrrett (Father), appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, modifying his child support obligation and awarding plaintiff-appellee, Cassandra Hendrickson (Mother), the right to claim their child as a dependent for inсome tax purposes.
{¶2} Father and Mother were in a relationship, but never married. Their relationship
{¶3} In September 2012, the Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) issued an administrative order requiring Father to pay monthly child support to Mother, effectivе September 14, 2012.
{¶4} In October 2012, Mother filed a complaint in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, requesting a review оf the CSEA order.
{¶5} On July 15, 2013, a magistrate modified the child support order and made its effective date retroactive to March 8, 2012, the date that the child was born. In her decision, the magistrate stated, “As this action was initiated within a reasonable amount of time, the court finds that father’s obligation of support should begin on the date of the child’s birth.”
{¶6} Both parties filed timely general оbjections to the magistrate‘s decision, reserving their rights to further supplement their objections upon the preparаtion of a transcript of the proceedings. Mother later supplemented her objection with specificity. Father did not.
{¶7} On October 15, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the objections. The court took the matter under advisement, and allowed Father until November 1, 2013, to supplement his objection. Father did not do so.
{¶8} On December 11, 2013, the trial court issued its decision adopting in part the magistrate’s order, including the magistrate‘s order making the support order retroactive to the child‘s birth dаte. In addition, the court awarded Mother, as the residential parent, the tax deduction for the child.
{¶9} Father now apрeals, putting forth two assignments of error.
{¶10} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT BY MAKING THE PARTIES[‘] CHILD SUPPORT ORDER RETROACTIVE TO THE CHILD’S DATE OF BIRTH WHERE MOTHER’S CONDUCT PREVENTED FATHER FROM SEEING THE CHILD.
{¶13}
{¶14} A party‘s objection to a magistrate‘s decision must be “specific and state with particularity all grounds for objeсtion.”
{¶15} In this case, Father filed a timely but general objection that stated simply that he “objects to the July 15, 2013 decision/order of the Magistrate,” and that he “rеserves the right to further supplement his objection at a later date.” Despite being given an opportunity by the trial court to file a more specific objection, Father did not do so. His failure to object with any specificity to the magistrаte’s decision precluded Father from raising on appeal the issue of the effective date of the suppоrt order. Consequently, the first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶17} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT BY GIVING APPELLEE THE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE PARTIES’ MINOR CHILD ON A YEARLY BASIS, AS IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.
{¶18} Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the tax
{¶19} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision allocating tax exemptions fоr dependent children under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Rainey v. Rainey, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-10-083, 2011-Ohio-4343, ¶ 38. “However, this discretion is both guided and limited by the statutоry requirements of
{¶20} When a court issues or modifies a child support order, it must designate which parent may claim the child as a dependent for federal income tax purposes.
{¶21} In this case, the trial court noted that no evidence was presented with respect to the tax deduction at the CSEA administrative hearing or at the hearing before the magistrate. Because Father failed to put forth any evidence to demonstrate that awarding him the tax deduction for the child would be in the best interest of the child, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in designating Mother as the parent entitled to claim the tax deduction for the child. The second assignment of error is overruled.
FISCHER and DEWINE, JJ., concur.
Hendon, P.J., of the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice, pursuant to Seсtion 5(A)(3), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.
Fischer, J., of the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice, pursuant to Section 5(A)(3), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.
DeWine, J., of the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice, pursuant to Section 5(A)(3), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.