[Cite as Garner v. Boyd, 2012-Ohio-1489.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

BRENT RAY GARNER : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

ANGEL MARIE BOYD : Case No. CT11-0050 

 : 

Defendant-Appellee : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Domestic Relations Divison, 

Case No. DE2010-0724 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 26, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

BRIAN W. BENBOW D. SCOTT RANKIN 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0050 2 

605 Market Street 45 North Fourth Street 

Zanesville, OH 43701 Zanesville, OH 43701 

Farmer, J. 

{¶1} On May 15, 2003, appellee, Angel Marie Boyd gave birth to a child. The 

child's father is appellant, Brent Ray Garner. On August 19, 2010, appellant filed a 

complaint for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Each party filed a 

shared parenting plan. By judgment entry/shared parenting decree filed August 25, 

2011, the trial court approved and adopted appellee's amended shared parenting plan 

wherein appellant was named the child support obligor and was ordered to pay $150.00 

per month. 

{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: 

I 

{¶3} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT 

ORDERED APPELLANT/FATHER TO BE THE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGOR WHEN 

APPELLANT/FATHER HAS THE CHILD IN HIS HOUSEHOLD MORE THAN 

APPELLEE/MOTHER UNDER THE SHARED PARENTING PLAN ADOPTED BY THE 

TRIAL COURT. THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE INSTEAD ORDERED 

APPELLEE/MOTHER TO BE THE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGOR AND ORDERED A 

MINIMUM SUPPORT ORDER PURSUANT TO R.C. 3119.06." 

I 

{¶4} Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining the amount of his child 

support obligation because he has custody of the child under the shared parenting 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0050 3 

agreement more than fifty percent of the time and therefore appellee should have been 

found to be the child support obligor. We disagree. 

{¶5} A determination on child support lies in the trial court's sound discretion. 

Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we 

must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable 

and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio 

St.3d 217. 

{¶6} Each party filed a shared parenting plan. By judgment entry/shared 

parenting decree filed August 25, 2011, the trial court approved appellee's amended 

shared parenting plan. The amended shared parenting plan included the following 

parenting time schedule: 

{¶7} "B. Physical Parenting Time Schedule. The child shall primarily reside with 

Father during the child's school year, with the Mother having parenting time from Friday 

6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. the first three weekends over every month, unless 

there is a holiday that interferes with said parenting time that belongs to Father. 

{¶8} "C. The Father shall be designated residential parent for school purposes. 

{¶9} "D. Holidays. The parties shall exercise holiday parenting time as agreed 

with parenting time being no less than this Court's Standard Parenting Time Order with 

the Father being designated residential parent for purposes of allocating the holidays 

pursuant to this order unless otherwise agreed. 

{¶10} "E. Summer. [A.] shall primarily reside with mother during the summer with 

father having parenting time from Friday at 6:00pm until Sunday at 6:00pm the first 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0050 4 

three weekends over every month during the summer, unless there is a holiday that 

interferes with said parenting time that belongs to Mother." 

{¶11} The amended shared parenting plan included the following order on child 

support: 

{¶12} "1) FATHER shall be the Child Support Obligor, MOTHER shall be the 

Child Support Obligee. The children for whom the support is ordered are: [A.R.G.] 

d.o.b. 5/15/2003. 

{¶13} "2) Applying the guidelines set forth in the Ohio Revised Code to the 

income information provided resulted in a zero child support obligation for Angel Marie 

Boyd and a child support obligation of $351.06 per month for Brent Ray Garner as 

evidenced by the child support worksheets attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. In 

considering the provisions of the Shared Parenting Plan the Court finds that a child 

support order wherein Brent Ray Garner is the child support Obligor, Angel Marie Boyd 

is the child support Obligee for the benefit of the minor child [A.R.G.] is appropriate in 

the amount of $150.00 per month plus processing charge." (Emphasis sic.) 

{¶14} As per the child support worksheet, the household income after child 

support was $22,422.40 for appellant and minus $3,721.60 for appellee. The actual 

amount for child support without a deviation would have been $351.06. By ordering 

$150.00 per month, the trial court deviated by more than 57%. The actual parenting 

time would be a ratio of nine to three or two-thirds of the time with appellant and onethird of the time with appellee. 

{¶15} The child support worksheet lists mother's income in the negative and her 

obligation for child support was zero. Appellant argues because he has the child two-
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0050 5 

thirds of the time, appellee should provide minimum child support of $50.00 pursuant to 

R.C. 3119.06 which states: 

{¶16} "Except as otherwise provided in this section, in any action in which a 

court issues or modifies a child support order or in any other proceeding in which a 

court determines the amount of child support to be paid pursuant to a child support 

order, the court shall issue a minimum child support order requiring the obligor to pay a 

minimum of fifty dollars a month. The court, in its discretion and in appropriate 

circumstances, may issue a minimum child support order requiring the obligor to pay 

less than fifty dollars a month or not requiring the obligor to pay an amount for 

support.***" 

{¶17} From our review, we find the trial court specifically tailored the parenting 

time and the child support obligation to the specific needs and conditions of the parties. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the child support obligation given the fact that the 

residential parent with the lesser time has negative income per the worksheet. 

{¶18} The sole assignment of error is denied. 

{¶19} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, 

Domestic Relations Division is hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, J. 

Delaney, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur. 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________ 

 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney_____________ 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________ 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0050 6 

 JUDGES 

SGF/sg 217 
[Cite as Garner v. Boyd, 2012-Ohio-1489.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

BRENT RAY GARNER : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

ANGEL MARIE BOYD : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : CASE NO. CT11-0050 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, Domestic 

Relations Division is affirmed. Costs to appellant. 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________ 

 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney_____________ 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________ 

 JUDGES