Young v. NorrisYoung v. Norris
Rendered on September 13, 2018
Argued: Yvonne Young, pro se.
On brief: Gerald L. Norris, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} Respondent-appellant, Gerald L. Norris, appeals from the judgment еntry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, approving and adopting the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation to his child support order filed by the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“FCCSEA“). For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} In 2001, petitioner-appellee, Yvonne Young, filed a complaint to set child support for a minor child fathered by appellant, and an order of support was filed in January 2002. The order of supрort notes that “[e]ach party to this support order must notify the child support enforcement agency in writing of his or her current mailing address,
{¶ 3} In January 2012, the FCCSEA filed an Administrative Adjustment Recommendation (Form JFS 07724) and child support computatiоn worksheet. The Administrative Adjustment Recommendation as well as the instructions for service by ordinary mail pursuant to
{¶ 4} The next Administrative Adjustment Recommendation and child support computation worksheet filed by FCCSEA occurred roughly five years later on October 18, 2017. The Administrative Adjustment Recommendation provides notice that appellant had the right to request an administrative adjustment hearing if he disagreed with the results and that such request must be received within 14 calendar days plus 3 business days of the date the notiсe was mailed. The notice further provided that if appellant did not request an administrative adjustment hearing or a court hearing within that time frame, a new support order would issue incorporating the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation findings. The request for service by ordinary mail for the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation and computation worksheet was addressed to appellant at the Hilliard, Ohio address.
{¶ 5} On November 15, 2017, the trial court filed an entry stating the parties were servеd with a copy of the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation calculated by the FCCSEA and neither party objected to the recommendation. The trial court approved and adopted the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation as а court order. The accompanying form and addendum, as well as the request for service by ordinary mail, state an Embridge Lane (Dublin) address for appellant.
{¶ 6} Appellant filed a timely appeal.
{¶ 7} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:
[1.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PETITIONER-APPELLEE, YVONNE YOUNG, THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION CALCULATED BY THE FRANKLIN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (FCCSEA). PETITIONER-APPELLANT, GERALD L. NORRIS, WAS NOT SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION, THEREFORE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT THE CALCULATED FINDINGS PER THE ENTRY FILED ON 10/18/2017.
[2.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THE FINAL CALCULATIONS STATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS CALCULATED BY THE FRANKLIN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (FCCSEA) UNDER THE ADJUSTMENTS TO INCOME, LINE 9 (ANNUAL COURT-ORDERED SUPPORT PAID FOR OTHER CHILDREN).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶ 8} Generally, in reviewing matters concerning child support, appellate сourts look at whether the trial court abused its discretion. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144 (1989). Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court‘s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). However, questions of law are reviewed de novo. Fraley v. Estate of Oeding, 138 Ohio St.3d 250, 2014-Ohio-452, ¶ 11.
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Appellant‘s First Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting appellee the child support adjustment calculated by FCCSEA because he was not served with a copy of the October 18, 2017 Administrative Adjustment Recommendation and thereforе did not have the opportunity to object to the calculated findings. For the following reasons, we disagree with appellant.
{¶ 10} “[A] child support enforcement agency, an obligor, or an obligee may initiate an administrative reviеw of a child support order.” Burton v. Harris, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-518, 2013-Ohio-1058, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.);
{¶ 11} After the agency calculates a revised amount of child support, the FCCSEA incorporates the findings into an Administrative Adjustment Recommendation.
{¶ 12} If the non-requesting party‘s copy of the previous Administrative Review Notification was returned as undeliverable, FCCSEA holds off on delivering the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation and instead issues an Administrative Review Pending Notice.
{¶ 13} Unless the parties request an administrative hearing on the proposed change within 14 days after receipt of the notice, the revised amount of child support will be submitted to the court for inclusion in a revised court child support order.
{¶ 14} In this case, appellant contends that he knew an administrative review was taking place, noting “[t]he review was schedule for 10/16/2017” and “was a desk review and it was not necessary for either party to be present, therefore, a notice of the results would be forwarded to both parties by mail with further instructions.” (Appellant‘s Brief at 4.) According to appellant, he awaited notice of the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation and made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the FCCSEA case worker to ask when the notice of the results would be mailed.1 Appellant states he was then notified by mail of the November 15, 2017 entry of the trial court approving and adopting the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation as an order of the court based on his lack of objection. Appellant essentially contends that because he was not served with the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation, the trial court erred in upholding the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation calculated by FCCSEA. His argument fails for several reasons.
{¶ 15} First, “[t]he burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal rests with the [appellant].” Miller v. Johnson & Angelo, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1210, 2002-Ohio-3681, ¶ 2; see also
{¶ 16} Regаrdless, appellant‘s argument regarding lack of service fails on the merits. We note that the last service instruction and address maintenance item in the record listed prior to issuance of the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation indicаtes a Parkside Court (Hilliard) address for appellant. Under the general civil rules related to service of written notices subsequent to the original complaint, a document is properly served by, among other options, mailing it to the рerson‘s last known address.
{¶ 17} Moreover, FCCSEA followed the specific administrative procedure for issuing appellant a copy of the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation in the absence of a prior indication that mail was returnеd undeliverable at the Hilliard address. Appellant does not argue that he did not receive the initial Administrative Review Notification for the 2017 review at the Hilliard address and states in his appellate brief that he did know the review was ocсurring on a certain date. The record is devoid of any indication, such as an undeliverable return or an Administrative Review Pending Notice under
{¶ 18} With neither party requesting a hearing on the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation of child support, the trial court was mandated by statute to adopt FCCSEA‘s recommendation.
{¶ 19} Aсcordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Appellant‘s Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 20} In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in the final calculations stated in the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation under the adjustment to income, line 9 (annual court-ordered support paid for other children). In the first assignment of error, we already found that appellant was properly notified of the Administrative Adjustment Recommendation, and neither party requested a hеaring on the revised amount of child support. As such, the trial court was statutorily obligated to adopt FCCSEA‘s recommendation.
{¶ 21} Accordingly, appellant‘s second assignment of error is rendered moot.
V. CONCLUSION
{¶ 22} Having overruled appellant‘s first assignment of error and rendering appellant‘s second assignment of error moot, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch.
Judgment affirmed.
KLATT and HORTON, JJ., concur.