Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Juvenile Division Case No. SU-17719503
S.E.J., pro se.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, Gabriel Rivera and Steven Ritz, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE.
1} Appellant S.E.J. appeals the juvenile court's
child support order of $143.90 per month for his son, S.J.
(d.o.b. February 26, 2009). Appellant argues that the court
derived the support order after erroneously imputing to him
yearly income of $8, 476, representing 20 hours of minimum
wage employment per week. Appellant assigns three errors for
I. The trial court erred and abused its discretion [by
proceeding] with trial after appellant established for the
record the appellee * * * defaulted by failing to timely
answer the admissions as required by Civ.R. 36(C).
II. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it
failed to acknowledge appellant's disability status. R.C.
III. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when
failing to observe the appellant's disability funds by
miscalculating the appellant's funds. R.C. 3119.05.
2} Having reviewed the record and the controlling
law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
3} The record indicates that appellant and appellee
are currently involved in divorce proceedings, and appellee
is the residential parent of S.J. On December 2, 2017, the
Office of Child Support Services ("OCSS") obtained
an administrative order for child support requiring appellant
to pay $320.27 per month plus two percent for processing. It
is undisputed that appellant was unemployed at the time of
the order and appellee earns approximately $37, 000 per year.
In deriving appellant's support order, the OCSS
considered his 2017 receipt of $1, 359 from workers'
compensation and also imputed yearly income to him in the
amount of $12, 714, representing minimum wage work for 30
hours per week. Appellant filed objections to the
administrative order and propounded extensive discovery to
appellee and to the OCSS.
4} On June 7, 2018, the court held a hearing on
appellant's objections to the administrative support
order. Appellant maintained that admissions he propounded to
appellee should be deemed admitted for failure to timely
respond, and that he should be awarded summary judgment. He
also argued that the administrative support order was
erroneous in light of his disability.
5} The evidence presented to the court with regard
to appellant's requests for admissions indicates that
appellant's first set of discovery was sent to appellee
on March 7, 2018. On April 4, 2018, appellant filed a motion
to deem the first set of admissions admitted. Accounting for
mailing times, the court determined that appellee's
responses were not due at the point appellant filed his
motion to deem the matters admitted.
6} The court also noted that appellant's second
set of discovery was propounded to appellee on May 5, 2018.
On May 11, 2018, appellant filed a motion to deem the second
set of admissions admitted. Appellee informed the court that
she sent discovery responses to appellant by certified mail
in April 2018, but on June 1, 2018, her responses were
returned with the post office mark "refused."
Appellee gave additional copies of her discovery responses to
appellant in open court and the court took a brief recess in
order for appellant to review this ...