Related Cases

Cases Concerning the Calcuation of Guideline Child Support in Shared Parenting Situations

Pre Hubin v. Hubin Cases:

Pauly v. Pauly: In Pauly v. Pauly (Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 96-1329, 80 Ohio St. 3d 386; 686 N.E.2d 1108; 1997 Ohio LEXIS 3124, December 10, 1997), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the provisions of R.C. 3113.215(C) which excludes the child support obligation of a custodial and residential parent from being subjected to a child support order does not apply in cases of shared parenting. The result is that, in doing a guideline child support calculation in cases in which both parents are custodial and residential parents, neither parent's child support obligation is exempt from a child support order.
Luke v. Luke: In Luke v. Luke (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Case No. 97-L-044, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 647, February 20, 1998) the court unanimously concluded that, in the case of shared parenting, a guideline calculation of child support requires that both parents' child support obligation be subjected to a child support order. It allows that these two obligations may be "offset" resulting in a single order. But that order must reflect the child support obligations of both parents unless a court has determined that such an amount would be unjust, inappropriate and not in the best interest of the children. The decision clearly distinguishes this process of "offsetting" the two obligations from an "automatic credit", which the Supreme Court did not allow in Pauly.

On June 3, 1998, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio declined to hear an appeal of Luke v. Luke, thus allowing the unanimous decision of the Eleventh Appellate District Court to stand.

Beard v. Beard: In Beard v. Beard (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Portage County, Case No. 97-P-0109, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4531, September 25, 1998), the Eleventh Appellate District Court unanimously reaffirmed its conclusions in Luke v. Luke.
Weinberger v. Weinberger: In Weinberger v. Weinberger (Appeal No. C-970552, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2165, May 15, 1998), the court rendered a unanimous decision essentially similar to that of the Eleventh Appellate District Court in the Luke v. Luke case. The trial court was determined to have committed a reversible error by failing to recognize both parents' status as residential and custodial parent and, as a result of this error, subjecting Mr. Weinberger's child support obligation to a child support order but exempting Mrs. Weinberger's obligation from such an order. A court, though not a Child Support Enforcement Agency, may deviate from child support guideline calculations. However, in performing a guideline child support calculation in a shared parenting situation, the child support obligations of both parents must be subjected to a child support order.

On October 7, 1998, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of Weinberger v. Weinberger, thus allowing the unanimous decision of the First Appellate District Court to stand.

Congdon v. Congdon: In Congdon v. Congdon (Appeal No. C-971002, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5426, November 13, 1998), the First Appellate District court unanimously reaffirmed its decision in Weinberger v. Weinberger.
Leis v. Leis: Though Leis v. Leis (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Case No. 96-CA-20, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2638, June 20, 1997) was decided before the Ohio Supreme Court's Pauly decision, the central reasoning of the decision seems unaffected by the Court's reasoning in Pauly. In Leis, the Second Appellate District Court held that, for a guideline child support calculation in a shared parenting situation, "netting out" the child support obligations of the two parents in a shared parenting was required to avoid injustice and statutory inconsistency.
Loeffler v. Loeffler: In a footnote (#3) the Sixth Appellate District Court endorses the Luke method of calculating presumptive child support in a shared parenting case as mandatory.
French v. Burkhart: In this case, the Fifth Appellate District Court decided that, in setting guideline child support in a shared parenting case, a trial court may either employ the "Weinberger method" or a "sole custody with deviations" method provided it gives sufficient reason for its choice of method.

Post Hubin v. Hubin Cases:

Kehres v. Kehres: In this case before the Fifth Appellate Court--the same court that decided French v. Burkhart--the court unanimously overturned the decision of the trial court that had the father paying significant child support to the mother despite the fact that they had equal time with the children, equal expenses on the children and she earned significantly more than he did. Two of the three judges found no fault with the trial court's decision to employ a "sole custody calculation with deviations" method to calculate child support but, they found, the outcome had been "unreasonable". The member of the panel, Judge Gwin, concurred with the outcome, but endorsed a mandatory "Weinberger" method for calculating presumptive (guideline) child support in a shared parenting situation.
Fernback v. Fernback: Here, the Seventh Appellate District Court notes the confusion concerning the calculation of child support in shared parenting cases where both parents are residential parents and legal custodians. The rule that, pursuant to the Pauly Decision: "Because there are two residential parents in a shared parenting plan, each parent should be entitled to receive back one-half of the total combined child support obligation as their portion. In conformity with Pauly, this one-half division has nothing to do with the amount of time the child or children spend with each parent, but is due to the existence of two residential parents, each of whom becomes both the obligor and the obligee of child support."
Shaffer v. Shaffer: In this case, the Eleventh Appellate District Court reiterates the method used in Luke. See, especially, paragraph 13 in which the court writes: "However, if the shared parenting agreement had not designated appellant as residential parent, both parents would be required to pay child support. Fernback, supra, at 3, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5804 at 7. Thus, the prior language contained in R.C. 3113.215(C), negating the residential parent's duty to pay an annual support obligation as calculated under the worksheet, would not apply to a shared parenting order according to the decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Pauly, supra. Luke v. Luke (Feb. 20, 1998), 11th Dist. No. 97-L-044, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 647, 1998 WL 172813, at 5. This court has stated that this scenario of two support orders results in an "offset" of one obligation from the other instead of creating two separate support orders. Id. at 5-6, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 647, *16-17.
Spencer v. Spencer: This Fifth Appellate District Court case does not address the calculation of guideline (presumptive) child support levels in shared parenting situations where both parents are custodial and residential parents. Instead, it raises two issues. The first and third assignments of error make arguments for a "mandatory deviation" from guideline amounts. These are dismissed by the Court on the grounds that a child support decision will be overturned only on an abuse of discretion basis and there was no abuse of discretion in this case. The second assignment of error objects that the trial court did not lay out findings of fact to support the determination of the mother as the residential parent. (The parents split time with the children on a 52%/48% basis.) The Court rejected this assignment of error on the grounds that the appellant had not raised it before the trial court. This case, then, does not focus on the crucial issue raised in the Hubin case. It is included here as an example of how the Hubin case is being interpreted and applied in child support decisions in shared parenting cases.
Condor-Slifko v. Slifko: This Fifth Appellate District Court case reaffirms, in paragraph 12, the power of a trial court to use the offset method of calculating child support in shared parenting cases that the Court outlined in Weinberger v. Weinberger.