FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2007-02-0464.
KENYUNUS ANDREWS, pro se, Appellant.
SHARNAE LATHAN, pro se, Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
S. CALLAHAN, JUDGE.
Kenyunus Andrews ("Father") appeals from an order
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, increasing his child support obligation.
This Court affirms.
Father and Sharnae Lathan ("Mother") are the
parents of S.L. Mother is the residential parent, and Father
is the child support obligor. Following an administrative
adjustment hearing in 2013, the Summit County Child Support
Enforcement Agency ("CSEA"), recommended a
"revised child support order [of] $878.08 per month * *
*." Father filed objections to CSEA's recommendation
triggering the domestic court's review. Among other
items, Father objected to the amount Mother was claiming to
spend on child care.
In January 2014, a magistrate's hearing was held with
Mother present and Father, who lives out of state,
participating by telephone. The magistrate found "no
apparent defect in the administrative calculation."
Father filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The
trial court overruled those objections and ordered
"[t]he Administrative Order issued by the CSEA shall
remain in effect."
Father appealed, but this Court dismissed his appeal for lack
of a final, appealable order. Lathan v. Andrews, 9th
Dist. Summit No. 27447, 2015-Ohio-1249, ¶ 8-9. This
Court explained, "[R.C.] 3119.63 does not permit the
CSEA to modify the court's child support order; it may
only recommend a modification, and the court must issue a
modified order." Id. at ¶ 8.
Upon remand, the trial court entered a new order and Father
moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered
evidence. Father attached an affidavit from
Mother's estranged father. He averred, inter alia, that
Mother's child care provider had been his fiancé
previously, that Mother did not pay for child care between
2002 and 2007, and that the child care provider continued to
watch Mother's children on a limited basis at no cost to
Mother. The court granted the motion for a new trial and
referred the matter to a magistrate for hearing.
That hearing was held in March 2016. Mother was present at
the hearing. Although Father was not present, his attorney
was. Neither the child care provider nor Mother's
estranged father were present to testify. Mother presented
various documents to refute her estranged Father's claim
that she had not paid for child care between 2002 and 2007.
Mother also submitted a copy of a letter from her child care
provider. Mother testified that she paid this particular
child care provider for child care from 2012 through 2014.
She indicated that she was not seeking any amount for child
care expenses beginning in 2015. Consequently, the magistrate
completed two child support computation worksheets. For the
time period from August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, the
magistrate calculated a support amount of $878.08 per month.
For the time period beginning January 1, 2015, the magistrate
calculated a support amount of $645.67 per month.
Father filed objections to the magistrate's decision.
More particularly, he objected:
1. The Magistrate failed to follow Summit County Domestic
Relations Rule 12.01 Exhibits. Specifically, she allowed
[Mother] to enter into evidence and relied on exhibits which
had not been provided to [Father's] counsel per 12.01(c)
seven days prior to the hearing.
2. The Magistrate abused her discretion in considering the
amount of child care paid from [Mother] to [the child care
provider] in the child support calculation.
3. The second child support worksheet is incorrect as it does
not give either party credit for other kids that they are
providing for in their respective households, which would
alter the amount of child support to be paid.
The first objection related to the documents from Mother
refuting her estranged father's allegations regarding
earlier payments for child care. The second objection related
to the child care costs and the resulting support calculation
for August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014. The third objection
related to the child support worksheet for the time period