Current Status: The Hubin case was closed with the July 11, 2001 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court. The possibility of re-litigating these issues based on the Ohio courts' treatment of the Hubin family was closed when the Hubins negotiated a resolution of child support issues after the emancipation of their second child. The legal issues remain unresolved. I'm leaving website live in the hopes that others can learn from this case, and through either court action or legislation, correct a serious problem in Ohio Law.
A Brief Chronology of the Hubin Case:
On June 30, 2000, the Tenth Appellate District Court denied Don Hubin's appeal on both the spousal support issue and the issue of guideline child support calculations in shared parenting situations.
On August 29, 2000, the Tenth Appellate District Court granted Hubin's motion to certify the question for the Ohio Supreme Court. In its judgment, it concluded that its "decision is clearly in conflict with ... other [appellate court] decisions on appellant's first issue" (the issue of whether in a shared parenting situation each parent is entitled to a presumption that the other parent will pay his/her actual annual child support obligation). This certified conflict sent the case to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Merit Brief was submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court on February 14, 2001.
On March 16, the Appellee's Merit Brief was filed with the Clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court. I do not have an electronic copy of it available for download at this time.
There was also an Amici Curiae brief filed by Michael Smalz of the Ohio State Legal Services Office (not affiliated in any way with The Ohio State University) on behalf of the following four organizations:
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support (ACES)
Ohio NOW Education and Legal Fund
Ohio Domestic Violence Network
Action Ohio Coalition for Battered Women
The pretext under which the latter two organizations joined the brief is that: (1) adequate child support payments provide essential economic security to many victims of domestic violence; (2) some domestic violence victims stay with or return to their abusers because of fear of economic impoverishment for themselves and their children; and (3) the likelihood that more abusive parents will seek parenting orders in order to obtain an automatic reduction in their child support obligations."
On April 5, Doug Dougherty filed a Reply Brief on behalf of Hubin.
Also filed on April 5 were two "friend of the court" briefs. One, filed by attorney James Hanneman, was filed on behalf of Parents And Children for Equality (PACE), the Children's And Parents' Rights Association (CAPRA) and the Children's Rights Council (CRC) of Ohio. This brief is available here. The second amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ed Kehres, another father whose children have been hurt by the practice Hubin is challenging. This brief was filed by attorney Heather Tootle. This brief is available here.
Oral arguments took place on Wednesday, May 30, 2001. For a recording of the oral arguments, click here.
On July 11, 2001, in a one sentence, unanimous ruling, the Court upheld the Tenth Appellate Court's Decision. The text of the ruling itself said only:
"The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Pauly v. Pauly (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 686 N.E.2d 1108.
Go to the Ohio Supreme Court's web page for a copy of the decision.
This judgment, completely lacking in any analysis or justification, is surprising in light of the fact that two appellate courts (the First and the Eleventh) agreed with Hubin.
On September 26, Hubin's request for reconsideration was denied by the Ohio Supreme Court.
After the Ohio Supreme Court Decision:
About the time the Ohio Supreme Court was making its unfortunate decision the Hubins' second child turned eighteen. Instead of letting the child support adjustment go to the Child Support Enforcement Agency--where he would, once again, be treated as a noncustodial parent and ordered to pay child support as if he never saw his children--Hubin filed a motion with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. In this motion, Hubin asked for more time with his remaining minor child, a reduction in spousal support, a declaration of the emancipation of Daniel and a recalculation of child support.
With respect to child support, Hubin specifically asked the court to do a series of things. In light of the OSC decision that a court may (or, perhaps, must) treat one parent as custodial and one as noncustodial, Hubin asked the court to treat him as the custodial parent for purposes of computing guideline child support. In the event that it declined that request, Hubin asked the court to state upon what facts and by appeal to what laws it had declined it. There is no statutory language justifying a basis for making this decision.
While it would have helped to clarify Ohio law to have these questions answered. The opportunity to settle the case arose, quite surprisingly. Hubin decided to take that option for several reasons. First, the ongoing litigation had been costly, in many respects, including financially despite the generous support from many. (Dan Slandzicki and attorney Doug Dougherty deserve special thanks for their contributions.) Second, Hubin's case isn't the best "fact pattern" to make the abstract points with. This is for three reasons:
Though, after the emancipation of his second child (when there would be no further effect on child support calculations), Hubin was able to secure equal time with his only remaining minor child, he didn't have equal time with his children until that point in the proceedings. (Prior to that, he had his minor children 40% of the time.) Hubin specifically told the court he didn't want the child support decided based on whether he got the additional time. He didn't want the opposing attorney to suggest that he was seeking more time in order to reduce his child support obligation.
Though Hubin's ex's income had risen dramatically, he still made a bit more than she did.
The existing court order--the one upheld by "Ohio's finest legal minds, the OSC justices"--treated Hubin as the noncustodial parent. The court could have just said, "we're just continuing the current state of affairs."
This web site is being left up for the time being in the hope that people can learn from it. If you, or someone you know, has a case that has a better "fact pattern" than Hubin's for showing the insanity of the current law in Ohio, please contact Don Hubin at donhubin@nationalparentsorganization.org.
Doug Dougherty is continuing to challenge the practices of Ohio courts of arbitrarily treating one parent in a shared parenting situation as if s/he is noncutodial for purposes of calculating child support. He is probably Ohio's resident expert attorney on this issue. For more information on Mr. Dougherty, please go here.