Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cynthia Parker v. Timothy Parker

November 4, 2011

CYNTHIA PARKER APPELLANT
v.
TIMOTHY PARKER APPELLEE



{¶1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas which ordered appellant to pay appellee child support in an amount of $274.70 per month for the parties' two minor children. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court. Trial Court No. 07 DR 1117

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Osowik, P.J.

Cite as Parker v. Parker,

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

{¶2} Appellant, Cynthia Parker, sets forth the following sole assignment of error:

{¶3} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR TO PLAINTIFF BY CONCLUDING THAT PLAINTIFF MUST PAY CHILD SUPPORT

TO DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH THE PARTIES' MINOR CHILDREN RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN WHAT THEY RECEIVE FROM CHILD SUPPORT."

{¶4} The following undisputed facts are relevant to the issues raised on appeal. This matter stems from a post-divorce proceeding between the parties. On June 1, 2009, a final divorce hearing was conducted between the parties. On June 5, 2009, a judgment entry was filed in which appellee was named the residential parent of the two minor children. Appellee, who suffers from a loss of vision which rendered him legally disabled, initially waived the receipt of child support payments from appellant, a non- disabled individual.

{¶5} On November 17, 2009, based upon new circumstances, appellee filed a motion against appellant requesting that appellant be ordered to pay child support. In support, appellee noted that in the intervening time period appellant repeatedly failed to exercise her visitation time with the children and thus was failing to contribute to the needs of the children.

{¶6} On November 18, 2009, the final judgment entry of divorce was filed.

Appellee was designated the custodial parent of the two minor children. Appellant was not ordered to pay child support at that time.

{¶7} On January 26, 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing on several post- divorce motions, including the request by appellee that appellant be ordered to pay child support. On May 7, 2010, the trial court filed its judgment on the post-divorce motions.

As specifically relevant to the issue of child support calculations which underlies case, the trial court judgment stated, "* * * the social security benefits received by defendant [appellee] on behalf of the children, to wit, $316.00 per child per month, should be added to his annual income to compute the percentage of contribution for child-support purposes." On June 7, 2010, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

{¶8} In the sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in its child support determination. Specifically, appellant claims it to be an abuse of discretion in ordering appellant to pay child support in a scenario in which the social security benefits that appellee receives for the children exceeds the amount of the court-ordered child support payment.

{ΒΆ9} This issue was specifically addressed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Williams v. Williams (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 441. The Williams court addressed the question of "'[s]hould a disabled parent's child support obligation be directly set off by Social Security payments received on behalf of a minor child, or should the joint child support obligation of both parties be reduced by the amount of the Social Security payments?'" Id. at 442. The Supreme Court held ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.