SHARNAE LATHAN v. KENYUNUS ANDREWS
C.A. No. 28382
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
June 21, 2017
[Cite as Lathan v. Andrews, 2017-Ohio-4419.]
CALLAHAN, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2007-02-0464
Dated: June 21, 2017
CALLAHAN, Judge.
{¶1} Kenyunus Andrews (“Father“) appeals from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, increasing his child support obligation. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Father and Sharnae Lathan (“Mother“) are the parents of S.L. Mother is the residential parent, and Father is the child support obligor. Following an administrative adjustment hearing in 2013, the Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA“) recommended a “revised child support order [of] $878.08 per month * * *.” Father filed objections to CSEA‘s recommendation triggering the domestic court‘s review. Among other items, Father objected to the amount Mother was claiming to spend on child care.
{¶3} In January 2014, a magistrate‘s hearing was held with Mother present and Father, who lives out of state, participating by telephone. The magistrate found “no apparent defect in
{¶4} Father appealed, but this Court dismissed his appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. Lathan v. Andrews, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27447, 2015-Ohio-1249, ¶ 8-9. This Court explained, “[
{¶5} Upon remand, the trial court entered a new order and Father moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.1 Father attached an affidavit from Mother‘s estranged father. He averred, inter alia, that Mother‘s child care provider had been his fiancé previously, that Mother did not pay for child care between 2002 and 2007, and that the child care provider continued to watch Mother‘s children on a limited basis at no cost to Mother. The court granted the motion for a new trial and referred the matter to a magistrate for hearing.
{¶6} That hearing was held in March 2016. Mother was present at the hearing. Although Father was not present, his attorney was. Neither the child care provider nor Mother‘s estranged father were present to testify. Mother presented various documents to refute her estranged Father‘s claim that she had not paid for child care between 2002 and 2007. Mother also submitted a copy of a letter from her child care provider. Mother testified that she paid this particular child care provider for child care from 2012 through 2014. She indicated that she was not seeking any amount for child care expenses beginning in 2015. Consequently, the magistrate
{¶7} Father filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. More particularly, he objected:
1. The Magistrate failed to follow Summit County Domestic Relations Rule 12.01 Exhibits. Specifically, she allowed [Mother] to enter into evidence and relied on exhibits which had not been provided to [Father‘s] counsel per 12.01(c) seven days prior to the hearing.
2. The Magistrate abused her discretion in considering the amount of child care paid from [Mother] to [the child care provider] in the child support calculation.
3. The second child support worksheet is incorrect as it does not give either party credit for other kids that they are providing for in their respective households, which would alter the amount of child support to be paid.
{¶8} The first objection related to the documents from Mother refuting her estranged father‘s allegations regarding earlier payments for child care. The second objection related to the child care costs and the resulting support calculation for August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014. The third objection related to the child support worksheet for the time period beginning January 1, 2015. The trial court overruled the first two objections and sustained the third one.
{¶9} Only the second objection concerning Mother‘s child care expenses from August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014 is at issue in this appeal. In overruling this objection, the trial court noted that the magistrate found Mother‘s “testimony about child care costs to be credible” and Mother submitted evidence of her child care costs. The trial court ordered support in the amount of $878.08 per month from August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, and $510.83 per month effective January 1, 2015.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF CHILD CARE PAID FROM [MOTHER] TO [CHILD CARE PROVIDER] IN THE CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATION.
{¶11} In his first assignment of error, Father argues that Mother did not provide sufficient proof of her child care costs.
{¶12} As an initial matter, this Court notes that Father is proceeding pro se in this appeal. This Court has repeatedly observed:
[P]ro se litigants should be granted reasonable leeway such that their motions and pleadings should be liberally construed so as to decide the issues on the merits, as opposed to technicalities. However, a pro se litigant is presumed to have knowledge of the law and correct legal procedures so that he remains subject to the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. He is not given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequences of his mistakes. This Court, therefore, must hold [pro se appellants] to the same standard as any represented party.
(Internal citations omitted.) Plaintiff v. Eberwein, 9th Dist. Medina No. 14CA0117-M, 2016-Ohio-5464, ¶ 7, quoting Sherlock v. Myers, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, ¶ 3. Accord Eslinger v. McKnight, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27649, 2015-Ohio-3446, ¶ 9.
{¶13} This Court reviews a trial court‘s decision with respect to child support, as well as a ruling on objections to a magistrate‘s decision, under an abuse of discretion standard. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 (1989); Daniels v. O‘Dell, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24873, 2010-Ohio-1341, ¶ 10. Under an abuse of discretion standard, this Court may not simply substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993). Rather, an abuse of discretion implies the trial court acted in a manner that was
{¶14} Father contends that “[t]he judge stated that the notarized letter was not sufficient and no other documentation was provided so the child care cost should not be credited.” In support of his position, Father references an exchange that occurred at the magistrate‘s hearing. To the extent that Father is basing this assignment of error on actions taken by the magistrate, this Court has held that claims of error on appeal must be based on the actions of the trial court. See Knouff v. Walsh-Stewart, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 09CA0075, 2010-Ohio-4063, ¶ 6.
{¶15} The trial court referenced the letter in its decision and found that Mother had submitted evidence of her child care costs. But, Father has not developed an argument that the trial court itself erred in relying on the letter,2 nor has he cited any legal authority in support of this portion of his argument. An appellant has the duty of providing this Court with citations to authorities which support his position. See
{¶16} Father also notes that the child care provider did not testify at the hearing. The trial court acknowledged this in its finding of facts, but relied on Mother‘s testimony and
{¶17} Finally, Father contends that, as a certified child care provider, Mother‘s child care provider should have provided her written receipts for her payments. As support for this assertion, he cites
{¶18} “If an argument exists that can support this assignment of error, it is not this [C]ourt‘s duty to root it out.” Cardone at *8. Father‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY CALCULATING CHILD CARE COST INTO THE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS[.]
{¶19} In his second assignment of error, Father argues that Mother did not need child care as a work- or education-related expense.
{¶20}
{¶21} This Court does not reach the merits of this argument because Father did not raise this issue in his objections to the magistrate‘s 2016 decision.
{¶22} Civil Rule 53 addresses proceedings in matters referred to magistrates. “Failure to specifically raise an argument in an objection to a magistrate‘s decision results in a forfeiture of that argument on appeal.” Coleman v. Coleman, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27592, 2015-Ohio-2500, ¶ 9. A party may, nonetheless, argue plain error on appeal. See
{¶23} Following the magistrate‘s 2016 decision, Father raised three objections. Only the second objection concerned child care expenses. It stated:
2. The Magistrate abused her discretion in considering the amount of child care paid from [Mother] to [the child care provider] in the child support calculation.
In a supplemental brief supporting his objections, Father elaborated, “[Mother] did not provide the court with any further documentation of this [child care] expense other than the letter from [the child care provider] that was under dispute.” He continued that the child care provider did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination. He represented that the court had stated that the letter alone was not sufficient to prove child care costs, but Mother “did not bring any additional evidence to show that she paid for childcare during that time.”
{¶25} While Father had challenged Mother‘s need for essentially full-time child care to attend school on a part-time basis in his 2014 objections, those objections are not before this Court in this appeal. Father‘s 2014 and 2016 objections both challenged Mother‘s failure to provide evidence beyond the child care provider‘s letter to prove the amount of her child care expenses. But, unlike his 2014 objections, his 2016 objections no longer challenged Mother‘s need for child care to attend school.
{¶26} Furthermore, Father‘s notice of appeal specified that he is appealing “from the final judgment entered in this action on August 29, 2016.” A notice of appeal must designate the judgments or orders appealed from.
{¶27} Father‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶28} Father‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
CARR, P. J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
KENYUNUS ANDREWS, pro se, Appellant.
SHARNAE LATHAN, pro se, Appellee.