PAULY, APPELLANT, v. PAULY, N.K.A. CLINGER, APPELLEE.
No. 96-1329
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
December 10, 1997
80 Ohio St.3d 386 | 1997-Ohio-105
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-95-293. Submitted October 7, 1997.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Timothy B. Pauly, and appellee, Patricia Clinger (formerly known as Patricia Pauly), were divorced on February 21, 1995. Pursuant to the divorce decree, the parties entered into a shared parenting plan to take care of their two minor children, Bennett M. Pauly, then age four, and Nicole K. Pauly, then age three. Under the plan, the children were to reside primarily with their mother. However, they would stay with their father on alternating Thursdays from 4:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m., on each succeeding alternating Wednesday from 4:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and on alternate weekends from 4:30 p.m. Friday until 9:00 p.m. Sunday. A court schedule was set up for holidays and vacations. The shared parenting plan also provided that appellant was entitled to claim both children as dependents for
{¶ 2} On May 8, 1995, appellee filed a motion to increase the amount of child support.1 A hearing was held before a magistrate, who issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate used the basic child support guidelines and the standard child support worksheet to calculate the amount of child support appellant owed, which he determined was $376.42 per month. The trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision. Appellant objected on the basis that he was entitled to a credit against the amount of child support he owed for the time his children resided with him, which went beyond the shared parenting plan schedule. The trial court, finding no reason to deviate from the standard child support computation, rejected this objection and ordered that appellee‘s motion for increased child support be granted.
{¶ 3} The Court of Appeals for Lucas County affirmed. It held that, with respect to a shared parenting order,
{¶ 4} The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
Timothy M. Coughtrie and Mark A. Robinson, for appellant.
Kevin P. McManus, for appellee.
David J. Fallang, urging reversal for amicus curiae, David J. Fallang.
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.
{¶ 5} The issue before this court is whether a parent paying child support under a shared parenting plan is entitled to an automatic credit for the time his children reside with him. For the reasons that follow, we hold that a parent is not entitled to an automatic credit.
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} Although some appellate courts have applied
{¶ 9}
{¶ 11} Instead, we find that
{¶ 12} Appellant seeks an automatic credit for the time he has cared for his children.
{¶ 13} We have held previously that “[t]he terms of
{¶ 14} It is well established that 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. Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028, 1030. In this case, the trial court followed the mandates of
{¶ 15} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., LAZARUS, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating.
CYNTHIA C. LAZARUS, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J.