Carrington v. Beverly

Summary

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed a Highland County Juvenile Division judgment overruling Derrick Beverly’s objections to termination of his child support obligation. The court held that Beverly could not use the appeal from the termination order to challenge the validity of a 2007 administrative child support order to which he had not timely objected. The court also concluded that the trial court provided multiple hearings and opportunities to present evidence regarding Beverly’s claims of fraud, coercion, and defective paternity testing.

Holdings

1. Under App.R. 16(A)(2) and Fourth Dist.Loc.R. 16(A)(7), an appellate court may disregard assignments of error that are not separately argued and supported by applicable standards, reasons, authorities, and record citations. Although the court could have disregarded Beverly's assignments, it elected to consider the essential substance of his arguments.
2. The assignments challenging the validity of the 2007 administrative child-support order were overruled because Beverly did not timely object to that order, and the court identified no authority allowing a court reviewing a later termination order to declare the nearly two-decade-old support order void.
3. The record did not support Beverly's claim that the juvenile court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing or refused to consider his evidence because the court held three hearings, allowed him to submit evidence, and gave him the opportunity to present his objections.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court should reverse because Beverly's brief and assignments of error failed to comply with Ohio appellate briefing rules.
2. Whether the juvenile court could declare the 2007 administrative child-support order void while reviewing objections to the later order terminating Beverly's child-support obligation.
3. Whether the juvenile court denied Beverly an evidentiary hearing or failed to permit him to present evidence concerning alleged fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, and irregularities in genetic testing.

Disposition

affirmed