IN RE J.C., ET AL.
Nos. 109747 and 109748
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
July 15, 2021
[Cite as In re J.C., 2021-Ohio-2451.]
Minor Children [Appeal by Mother, S.Y.C.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 15, 2021
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Court Division Case Nos. CU16101850 and CU16101851
Appearances:
Jay F. Crook, Attorney at Law, L.L.C., and Jay F. Crook; John Shryock Co., L.P.A., and John W. Shryock, for appellant.
Hans C. Kuenzi, Co., L.P.A., and Hans C. Kuenzi, for appellee.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, S.Y.C. (Mother) appeals from the trial court‘s judgment that established an effective date for modification of child support, did not award Mother child support, did not establish plaintiff-appellee, J.V.C. (Father)
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Mother and Father have two minor children, J.C. and G.C. (the children). On December 22, 2009, by the Lake County Juvenile Court, Father was awarded sole custody and residential status of the children. As a result, Mother was designated as the child support obligor and ordered to pay $1,181.97 per month in child support. On September 17, 2012, Mother filed a motion to modify her visitation with the children, and that motion was granted on September 6, 2013. Mother‘s child support obligation was modified to $626.23 per month.
{¶ 3} However, because of a typographical error adopted by the court, the child support was modified to $626.23 per month, per child, for a total of $1,252.46 a month. The magistrate journalized the incorrect child support amount even though the Lake County Child Support Enforcement Agency filed a document with the court demonstrating the correct amount of $626.23 per month. On October 16, 2015, Mother filed motions to waive and/or recalculate child support and to share federal tax credits.
{¶ 4} On December 11, 2015, Mother filed a motion to transfer the case to Cuyahoga County from Lake County. The motion was granted, and Mother filed another motion to share federal tax credits and to waive or recalculate the child support order. On December 5, 2018, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court held a hearing on Mother‘s motions. The trial court did not issue its ruling until two years
{¶ 5} Accordingly, the trial court ordered that Mother‘s motions to waive or recalculate the child support order and her motion to share the federal tax credits were granted, effective from December 5, 2018, not from October 16, 2015, when Mother originally filed her motion. The trial court reduced Mother‘s child support obligation to $0. The trial court also ordered that Father repay Mother within 30 days of the date of its order the overpayment of child support in the amount of $11,742.00 per child that Father received from October 16, 2015 to December 4, 2018. Father was also ordered to repay Mother any overpayment of child support he received after December 5, 2018.
{¶ 6} Mother filed this cross-appeal assigning seven assignments of error for our review:
- The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to make the effective date of the child support modification retroactive to the date the appellant filed her motion to modify on October 16, 2015;
- The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to award appellant child support;
- The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to consistently designate the obligor;
- The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to order that the share of federal tax credits begin retroactive to the filing date;
- The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to list the specific provisions for regular, holiday, vacation parenting time, and special visiting in accordance with Ohio Revised Code;
- The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to properly determine the person responsible for the health care coverage of the children; and,
- The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to properly order health care expenses under R.C. 3119.32.
II. Child Support Modification
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 7} “A trial court‘s decision regarding child support obligations falls within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.” J.E.M. v. D.N.M., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109532, 2021-Ohio-67, ¶ 22, citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). “More specifically, we review a trial court‘s child support modification order for an abuse of discretion.” Id., citing Morrow v. Becker, 138 Ohio St.3d 11, 2013-Ohio-4542, 3 N.E.3d 144, ¶ 9. “An ‘abuse of discretion’ occurs where the court‘s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id., citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “The trial court has considerable discretion in child support matters; absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a child support order.” Id., citing Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (1997).
B. Law and Analysis
{¶ 8} Since the law is identical concerning Mother‘s first and fourth assignments of error, we will address them together. In Mother‘s first assignment
it would be equitable to (1) modify and correct the prior calculation and order the obligee to return/repay the overpayment of child support which accrued between October 16, 2015 to December 4, 2018, in the amount of $313.12 for 37.50 months, which totals $11,742.00; (2) start the decrease in the child support order effective and retroactive to the date of hearing of the motion to modify child support to wit: 12/5/2018; (3) mother shall claim the child herein for federal tax dependency and credit purposes, while father shall continue to claim the federal tax dependency and credits for the child‘s sibling.
Journal entry No. 0913514665 (Apr. 17, 2020).
{¶ 9} “Absent some special circumstances which justify a different date, a party seeking modification of a support order is entitled to have the modification relate back to the date the motion to modify was filed.” Davis v. Dawson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87670, 2006-Ohio-4260, ¶ 8, citing Murphy v. Murphy, 13 Ohio App.3d 388, 389, 469 N.E.2d 564 (10th Dist.1984), and State ex rel. Draiss v. Draiss, 70 Ohio App.3d 418, 420-421, 591 N.E.2d 354 (9th Dist.1990). “If the trial court decides in its discretion that the order should not be retroactive to the date of the motion, it must state its reasons.” Id., citing Oatey v. Oatey, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 67809 and 67973, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1685, 42 (Apr. 25, 1996). See also Phelps v. Saffian, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106475, 2018-Ohio-4329, ¶ 37.
{¶ 10} A review of the record reveals that the trial court did not state its reasons for designating the hearing date as the effective date for the modification of
{¶ 11} In Mother‘s fourth assignment of error, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order that the share of federal tax credits begin retroactive to the filing date. The trial court stated in part: “mother is awarded the federal tax dependency and credits for the child‘s sibling commencing Tax Year 2019 for the earnings in 2018.” Journal entry No. 0913514665 (Apr. 17, 2020).
{¶ 12} “As a general rule, because of the time it takes to modify child support orders, an order modifying child support order may be made retroactive to the date the motion to modify child support was filed unless special circumstances dictate otherwise.” Phelps, 2018-Ohio-4329 at ¶ 37. The trial court did not specify in its order if special circumstances dictate otherwise. Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to make the effective date of the child support modification retroactive to the date that Mother filed her motion to modify child support on October 16, 2015.
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to make the effective date of the child support modification retroactive to the
{¶ 14} In Mother‘s second assignment of error, she contends that the trial court erred by not awarding her child support. Mother and Father‘s parenting schedule for the children provide equal time with each parent. However, there is a large disparity between Father‘s income of over $400,000 and Mother‘s income of around $250,000. When the combined annual income of both parents is greater than $150,000, the maximum annual income listed on the basic child support schedule,
If the combined annual income of both parents is greater than the maximum annual income listed on the basic child support schedule established pursuant to section
3119.021 of the Revised Code , the court, with respect to a court child support order, * * * shall determine the amount of the obligor‘s child support obligation on a case-by-case basis and shall consider the needs and the standard of living of the children who are the subject of the child support order and of the parents. The court or agency shall compute a basic combined child support obligation that is no less than the obligation that would have been computed under the basic child support schedule and applicable worksheet for a combined annual income equal to the maximum annual income listed on the basic child support schedule established pursuant to section3119.021 of the Revised Code , unless the court or agency determines that it would be unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the child, obligor, or obligee to order that amount. If the court * * * makes such a determination, it shall enter in the journal the figure, determination, and findings. * * *
{¶ 15} The trial court stated:
R.C. 3119.04(B) is applicable herein, and this court further considered the needs and standard of living of the child(ren); the ability of the parents to meet the needs and maintain the standard of living of the child(ren) with or without the support of the other parent; the amount of time the child(ren) spends with each parent (26 weeks per year per parent); extracurricular activities for the child(ren); and the ability of each parent to maintain adequate housing for the child(ren); disparityin income between the parents (obligee‘s income is nearly double obligor‘s income).
Journal entry No. 0913514665 (Apr. 17, 2020).
{¶ 16} The trial court reduced Mother‘s child support responsibilities to $0, but did not award any child support to Mother from Father. Mother and Father rely on facts in Prusia v. Prusia, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-02-1165, 2003-Ohio-2000, to aid their argument, where the minor children were in the custody of each parent for equal time, but the trial court did not award an order for child support to Mother, whose income was significantly lower than Father. The combined income of Mother and Father in Prusia was less than $150,000. The court in Prusia held that:
The relative imbalance in income between the parents is obvious, yet each will have financial responsibility while caring for [the child] an equal amount of time. We rule that it is proper for a trial court to order a custodial parent to pay child support to the noncustodial parent where the parents have equal time with the child.
{¶ 17} Mother argues that Prusia requires the court to order Father to pay her child support given the significant disparity in income between Mother and Father. Father, however, argues that the decision in Prusia does not apply to this case because Prusia does not cite
Except when the parents have split parental rights and responsibilities, a parent‘s child support obligation for a child for whom the parent is the residential parent and legal custodian shall be presumed to be spent on that child and shall not become part of a child support order, and a parent‘s child support obligation for a child for whom the parent is not the residential parent and legal custodian shall become part of a child support order.
{¶ 19} In this instant case, this court has noted that there is a disparity between the incomes of Mother and Father, and the parties’ combined gross income is greater than $ 150,000. “Therefore, the trial court was required to determine the amount of appellant‘s child support obligation by considering the ‘needs and the standard of living’ of the parties’ child and of the parties themselves.
{¶ 20} Further,
{¶ 21} Therefore, Mother‘s second assignment of error is sustained, and we remand to the trial court to determine Father‘s child support obligation to Mother.
{¶ 22} In Mother‘s third assignment of error, she argues, and Father concedes, that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to designate the obligor. “[T]he parent in a shared parenting plan with the greater child support obligation, after being given credit for the time that the child lives with him or her, is the obligor parent * * *.” Leis v. Leis, 2d Dist. Miami No. 96-CA-20, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2638 (June 20, 1997). The case caption designates Father as the obligor, but in the journal entry, the trial court designates Mother as the obligor. In light of the discrepancy, we remand to the trial court to designate Father as the obligor and Mother as the obligee.
{¶ 23} Therefore, Mother‘s third assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 24} In Mother‘s fifth assignment of error, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to list the specific provisions for regular, holiday, and vacation parenting time, in addition to special visitation. It is important to note that this ruling was in response to Mother‘s motion to waive and/or recalculate child support and for the share of the federal tax credits, not to modify the custody agreement. In its ruling, the trial court stated: “All other orders not modified herein remain in effect until further [sic] of the Court.” Journal entry No. 0913514665 (Apr. 17, 2020).
{¶ 25} The trial court did not modify the shared parenting arrangement, nor did Mother request a modification or raise this issue to the trial court. “In general, the failure to raise an issue in the trial court, forfeits the issue on appeal.” State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108868, 2020-Ohio-4135, ¶ 10, citing Broadview Hts. v. Misencik, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100196, 2014-Ohio-1518, ¶ 19. Additionally, the trial court incorporated the agreed upon shared parenting time in its journal entry, stating:
[T]he Lake County Juvenile Court modified its original orders, increasing mother/obligor‘s parenting time to alternating, weekly parenting time with the child and child‘s sibling (Sunday at 7:00 p.m. to Sunday to the following Sunday at 7:00 p.m.) and adding vacations days, days of special meaning, and holidays.
Journal entry No. 0913514665 (Apr. 17, 2020).
{¶ 26} Therefore, Mother‘s fifth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 27} In Mother‘s sixth assignment of error, she contends, and Father concedes, that the trial court erred by failing to determine the person responsible for the health care coverage of the children. In its ruling, the trial court ordered both Mother and Father to carry private health insurance. However, Mother argues that she has always carried the health insurance for the children and at reasonable costs. Under
{¶ 28} Therefore, Mother‘s sixth assignment of error is sustained, and the trial court is ordered to designate Mother as the sole provider of health insurance for the children.
{¶ 29} In Mother‘s seventh assignment of error, she argues, and Father concedes, that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to properly order health care expenses under
{¶ 30} Therefore, Mother‘s seventh assignment of error is sustained, and we remand to the trial court to allocate health care expenses between Mother and Father.
{¶ 31} Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
It is ordered that the parties share equally the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR