Mitchell v. MitchellMitchell v. Mitchell
Scott R. Stefl, Harbor House Professional Building, 7844 Lakeshore Boulevard, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Scott A. Mitchell, appeals the judgment entered by the Domestic Relations Division of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} Appellant and appellee, Sarah E. Mitchell, were married on June 1, 2002. Two children were born as issue of the marriage.
{¶3} Ms. Mitchell filed a complaint for divorce. The parties agreed to all issues with the exception of child support.
{¶5} The parties stipulated that Ms. Mitchell “pays bi-weekly $80.00 for a single policy of health insurance and $250.00 for a family policy.” Further, the child support calculation worksheet illustrates that Ms. Mitchell‘s “marginal, out-of-pocket costs, necessary to provide for health insurance costs for the children,” amount to $4,420, while Mr. Mitchell does not incur any out-of-pocket health care costs related to the children at issue.
{¶6} The magistrate‘s decision further ordered Mr. Mitchell to pay child support in the amount of “$249.42 per month per child, *** when health insurance is in effect through OCS/DJFS. When health insurance is not in effect [Mr. Mitchell] shall pay *** the sum of $151.17 per month per child, plus processing and as cash medical support $302.34.”
{¶7} Mr. Mitchell filed an objection to the magistrate‘s decision, stating:
{¶8} “1. The Magistrate‘s Decision finds ‘there is nothing in the record to indicate a deviation from the child support worksheet would be in the best interest of the children.’ Clearly, as [Mr. Mitchell] lost a good paying job at Lincoln Electric and is now making $23,129.00 per year, a support obligation of $508.82/month ($6,105.84/year) would pose an undue burden.
{¶10} The trial court issued a judgment entry dated August 28, 2009, indicating that the transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate had not been filed. With regard to Mr. Mitchell‘s first argument above, the trial court stated:
{¶11} “To support [Mr. Mitchell‘s] argument for a deviation, a transcript is required pursuant to
{¶12} The trial court further found Mr. Mitchell‘s second argument above without merit, stating, “[s]hared parenting does not equate to an automatic reduction in child support as is well settled by case law.”
{¶13} Mr. Mitchell filed a timely notice of appeal and asserts the following assignments of error for our review:
{¶15} “[2.] The Trial Court erred in denying appellant‘s objection to magistrate‘s decision solely because no transcript was filed.”
{¶16} A trial court‘s decision regarding child support will not be reversed by a reviewing court unless it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion. Pauly v. Pauly (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, citing Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144. “‘The term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court‘s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.‘” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
{¶17} We first address Mr. Mitchell‘s second assignment of error. Mr. Mitchell argues the trial court erred in rejecting his objections to the magistrate‘s decision “solely because no transcript was filed.”
{¶18} In its judgment entry, the trial court noted a transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate had not been filed, and, therefore, the trial court aptly stated that “the facts are as determined by the [m]agistrate in his [d]ecision, pursuant to
{¶19} Mr. Mitchell claims he was entitled to a downward deviation from the child support guidelines because of his extended parenting time and the disparity in income between himself and Ms. Mitchell.
{¶20} The purpose of child support is to meet the needs of the minor children. Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio-7107, at ¶10. (Citations omitted.) “Generally, courts must use the Ohio Child Support Guidelines in ascertaining the appropriate level of child support. *** However, a court may deviate from these guidelines at its discretion after considering the statutory factors delineated in
{¶21} ”
{¶23} For purposes of
{¶24} “(1) The amount of time the children spend with each parent;
{¶25} “(2) The ability of each parent to maintain adequate housing for the children;
{¶26} “(3) Each parent‘s expenses, including child care expenses, school tuition, medical expenses, dental expenses, and any other expenses the court considers relevant;
{¶27} “(4) Any other circumstances the court considers relevant.”
{¶28} Two of the factors set forth in
{¶29} Mr. Mitchell‘s objection to the magistrate‘s decision focused solely on the legal conclusions drawn from facts presented at the hearing. Consequently, Mr. Mitchell argues that he was not required to file a transcript of the magistrate‘s hearing at the time he filed his objections. We further note that Mr. Mitchell has not presented this court with a record on appeal. The only evidence Mr. Mitchell presents to support his argument for a downward deviation from the child support calculation is the fact that the parties entered into a shared parenting plan and Mr. Mitchell‘s income is less than that of Ms. Mitchell. This court must be mindful that “‘“there is ‘no authority requiring a domestic court to deviate from the child support guidelines merely because a deviation would be permissible, or even desirable.‘” (Emphasis sic.) ***.‘” Warzala v. Warzala, 11th Dist. Nos. 2006-T-0018 and 2006-T-0025, 2007-Ohio-2855, at ¶26. (Citation and internal citation omitted.)
{¶30} Neither the trial court nor this court has any evidence demonstrating what effect Mr. Mitchell‘s increased parenting time would have on his general living expenses. Furthermore, there is no evidence relating to Mr. Mitchell‘s expenses, his current living situation, or any factors that may have been considered by the trial court. As noted above, Mr. Mitchell bore the burden of presenting evidence “that proves the calculated amount is unjust, inappropriate, or not in the best interest of the children.” Albright v. Albright, 2007-Ohio-3709, at ¶7.
{¶32} Based on the record before us, we conclude the court‘s child support award is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. The judgment of the Domestic Relations Division of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.,
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
concur.