Summary
The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a Richland County domestic-relations judgment establishing Heidi Back's child-support obligation. The court held that Back was given a full opportunity to present evidence at the hearing and properly denied consideration of evidence attached to her objections that could have been presented to the magistrate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court prevented appellant from presenting evidence or otherwise denied her a full opportunity to be heard during the child-support hearing.
- Whether the trial court's conduct violated Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 2.2 and 2.6(A), and whether the Child Support Enforcement Agency violated Ohio Administrative Code 5101:12-45-05.2(D).
Holdings
- The trial court did not prevent appellant from presenting evidence or deny her a full opportunity to be heard. The record showed that, after cross-examination, the court specifically asked whether there was anything else she wanted the court to know, and appellant declined to add anything.
- The record did not support appellant's claim that the trial court violated Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 2.2 or 2.6(A), or that the Child Support Enforcement Agency violated Ohio Administrative Code 5101:12-45-05.2(D).
Key quotations
“We find Appellant was not prevented from presenting any evidence.” (¶ 19)
“Appellant was given the opportunity to fully present her position, but she chose not to do so.” (¶ 19)
“The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Appellant and appellee are the unmarried natural parents of two minor children, and appellee had legal custody of the children. The county child support enforcement agency proposed that appellant, who was unemployed, pay child support and medical support based on income imputed at minimum wage, with appellee receiving the dependent-child tax exemption. At the hearing, appellant stated that she could not afford the proposed obligation and referred to her inability to work, health issues, childcare problems, and tax returns. The court later found that she had been given an opportunity to present her position and that she chose not to offer additional information.
Procedural history
The Richland County Child Support Enforcement Agency filed a motion to establish child and medical support on behalf of appellee. After a hearing, the magistrate designated appellant as the obligor and ordered her to pay $221.50 per month in child support. The trial court denied appellant's objections, finding that she had been afforded a full opportunity to present evidence and that the evidence attached to her objections could have been submitted at the hearing. The Fifth District affirmed.