[Cite as Carpenter v. Carpenter, 2019-Ohio-4709.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

TUSCARWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

QUINTIN CARPENTER 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsJESSICA CARPENTER, ET AL 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Tuscarawas County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 

TC 12 0521 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 14, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

ERICK BAUER DAN GUINN 

122 North Broadway Street P.O. Box 804 

New Philadelphia, OH 44663 New Philadelphia, OH 44663 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 2 

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Mother appeals the March 22, 2019 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas 

County Court of Common Pleas overruling her objections to the magistrate’s decision 

naming Father the residential and custodial parent of the parties’ two children. 

Facts & Procedural History

{¶2} Mother and Father were married on September 17, 2011 and had two 

children, Q.C., born on February 20, 2012, and C.C., born on November 9, 2013. Father 

filed a complaint for divorce on December 28, 2016. On December 15, 2017, the parties 

entered into a separation agreement and a shared parenting plan. Pursuant to the shared 

parenting agreement, Mother and Father each were designated residential and custodial 

parent while the children were in his or her physical custody. The parties agreed Father 

would pay Mother $670 per month in child support. 

{¶3} On July 5, 2018, Mother filed a motion to modify, seeking to terminate the 

shared parenting agreement and terminate the visitation order of Elizabeth Board 

(“Board”), the paternal grandmother of the children. On September 5, 2018, Father filed 

his motion to terminate the shared parenting plan and motion for reallocation of parental 

rights and responsibilities. Father filed a motion to modify child support on October 10, 

2018. 

{¶4} The magistrate held a hearing on the motions on October 11, 2018 and 

October 18, 2018. Rae Ann Bowden (“Bowden”) is a kindergarten teacher. Q.C. was in 

her class last year. Bowden stated that from February to May of 2018, Q.C. improved 

and did well in class. Melinda Limbacher (“Limbacher”) is Q.C.’s first grade teacher. 

Limbacher testified Q.C. sometimes lacks focus, but his grades are good. Limbacher 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 3 

does not know if his focus issues are related to which parent he is with because she does 

not know who he is with on a given day. 

{¶5} Father was incarcerated for six months, from February to August of 2018. 

Father stated he was in prison for possession of firearms that Mother purchased for him. 

Father is currently on probation, has travel restrictions, and has to submit to random drug 

testing. Mother also is on probation due to a criminal case. She testified she is on 

probation for another eighteen months and has travel restrictions. While Father was in 

prison, per order of the court, Board exercised Father’s parenting time with the children. 

Board no longer has parenting time since Father is out of prison, but does have second 

right of refusal. Both Mother and Father testified they do not believe they are capable of 

shared parenting. 

{¶6} Mother is employed at Union Country Club. She has flexibility with her 

schedule, makes $12 per hour, and normally works twenty to twenty-five hours per week, 

although Mother testified they could give her more hours. She receives no benefits or 

insurance. Mother rents a two-room apartment. Mother testified her paramour does not 

live with her, even though she put two adults on her affidavit of income and expenses 

form. 

{¶7} Father is employed at Worth Carter Construction at $8.30 per hour working 

approximately thirty to forty hours per week. Father makes less now than prior to when 

he went to prison and his child support is still the same. Prior to going to prison, Father 

worked as a mechanic, making $21 per hour. Father testified he has looked for other 

employment as a mechanic, including at car dealerships and has had several interviews. 

However, Father has been unable to obtain another job due to his felony conviction. 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 4 

Mother does not believe Father makes $8.30 per hour because concrete workers do not 

make less than minimum wage. Mother also thinks Father has other sources of income, 

such as fixing vehicles. 

{¶8} Mother lists her concerns with Father as follows: C.C. came home with a 

hickey on her neck, when the children come home from Father’s they are tired, Father 

has anger issues, Father does not get the children’s homework done, several weeks ago 

C.C. had scratches on her forehead and nose and Q.C. had a gash on his back when 

Father took them to a construction site, C.C. had a urinary tract infection, and Father puts 

the children in clothes that are two sizes too big. Mother called the police when C.C. had 

the urinary tract infection and when the children had hickeys. 

{¶9} Father testified the children have never returned home from his house with 

a hickey. Father has photographs of the children getting bumps and bruises while with 

Mother, but believes children get bumps, bruises, and scrapes and parents cannot protect 

children from everything. Father thinks these are minor injuries. Father stated he took 

C.C. to work with him for approximately twenty minutes. C.C. was playing in a pile of dirt 

and fell. C.C. was not unsupervised and the construction work was done for the day when 

she was playing. 

{¶10} Mother testified she heard Father screaming at both of the children loudly 

when she went to pick them up. Father denied yelling at the children and stated Mother’s 

testimony in that regard is not truthful. Mother stated there were issues with Father getting 

the children’s homework done. However, Mother also testified she did not always send 

the homework when the children went to Father’s. Father testified he makes sure 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 5 

everything that comes home with the children gets done, but there have been some 

instances where Mother has not provided him with the homework. 

{¶11} Mother believes Father puts the children in clothes that are two sizes too 

big. Board does not believe Father is dressing the children inappropriately. Father 

testified the clothes he purchased for the children never fall off them, but there have been 

instances where he bought clothes a size bigger so the children can wear them longer. 

{¶12} Father and Mother have never been able to agree on a baby-sitter. As to 

C.C.’s preschool, Mother stated she did not have a choice as to which Head Start location 

she enrolled her in. However, Mother also testified she asked C.C. which preschool she 

would like to attend, and C.C. wanted to ride the bus with her friends to the preschool 

location Mother chose. Board testified that when she was told she could not use the 

baby-sitters she was using because of Mother’s abuse allegations, she found a daycare 

next to a Head Start preschool location where they would walk C.C. to the daycare; 

however, when Board informed Mother of this, Board received no response. Father 

testified if C.C. were to attend the preschool next to the daycare, no one would have to 

leave work at lunch to transport her from school to daycare. Father stated he attempted 

to discuss this with Mother, but Mother told him no. 

{¶13} Mother believes Board fails to take care of the children when they were and 

are in her care. Board testified that though Mother has accused her multiple times, Board 

has never bathed the children together or spanked the children. Board contacted Mother 

when Board believed C.C. had a urinary tract infection. Board testified Mother was “very 

disagreeable” and did not want Board to take C.C. to the doctor. Board identified several 

instances while Father was in prison when Mother did not provide Board with her work 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 6 

schedule. Board is concerned about what Mother tells the children. Board stated Mother 

did not share information with her and it was very difficult to schedule things and they still 

have difficulty finding and keeping daycare providers. 

{¶14} Mother testified to an ongoing molestation investigation regarding the 

childcare provider Board had for the children. Mother does not know the status of the 

investigation with the police and/or DJFS. Board testified no one has contacted her about 

any allegations of abuse. Board testified that on October 6, 2018, when Mother and her 

paramour came to pick up the children, Mother smelled like alcohol. Board offered to 

drive them home, but Mother refused, and they walked home. Mother testified she was 

not drinking and it was a nice day to walk home. 

{¶15} Mother testified she does not believe there are communication issues 

between her and Father, as they text back and forth without issue. However, Mother also 

testified there are issues with scheduling because although she gives Father her work 

schedule, he does not give her his work schedule. Father stated his and Mother’s 

communication ability is inconsistent. Father understands they are court-ordered to use 

the Family Wizard program to communicate, but he does not use it much because Mother 

does not have a subscription to the program. 

{¶16} Mother stated she has no problems taking the children to school and has 

childcare set up for them. Mother testified the children are both doing well in school. 

During the first day of testimony, Mother stated she was hoping to maybe move to 

Gnadenhutten or a better school district for her children because her son gets bullied a 

lot. However, during the second day of testimony, Mother stated she had no plans to 

move. 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 7 

{¶17} Mother has the children in counseling, but is looking for a different 

counselor. Mother believes it is in the best interest of the children for Father to have 

parenting time every other week-end and one day during the week. Mother testified she 

is trying to limit Father’s parenting time with this proposed schedule. Father fears if 

Mother is the custodial parent, she is going to do everything she can to keep the children 

away from him because she has stated she wants to limit his time with the children and 

because she went out of her way to make sure Father could not exercise his right of first 

refusal on multiple occasions. Father testified he would like to cooperate on parenting. 

Father would like a week-to-week schedule and, even on this schedule, Father would let 

Mother have the children in the morning to take them to school during his week. Father 

does not believe Mother honors and facilitates his relationship with the children and does 

not believe he has ever been included in making decisions for the children despite the 

shared parenting agreement. Father cites as examples the fact that Mother removed him 

from the paperwork at the children’s school and the fact that he did not know the children 

were in counseling until he heard Mother’s testimony at the hearing. 

{¶18} Mother admitted she has been found guilty of violating court orders twice in 

this case: once for failing to honor Father’s right of first refusal by not giving Father the 

dates she was working and once for refusing to give Board the children for a week-end 

after being specifically ordered to do so. Father testified Mother is not good at following 

court orders, as he has been in court four times since he got out of prison in August. 

Father stated he would facilitate court orders if he were the custodial parent. 

{¶19} The magistrate issued a judgment entry on November 13, 2018, finding both 

parties agreed their shared parenting plan should be terminated. The magistrate 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 8 

reviewed the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F) as follows: (a) Mother and Father each want to 

be named the custodial parent of the children; (b) the magistrate did not conduct a child 

interview; (c) both Mother and Father have felony convictions; (d) one child has some 

occasional difficulty focusing in school, but the teachers have not correlated the behavior 

with parenting time; at the first hearing, Mother stated she wanted to change school 

systems, but at the second hearing Mother stated she had no intention of moving the child 

out of the New Philadelphia School System; Mother admits she did not always send the 

homework with the children to Father’s home; (e) all the parties are healthy, but there is 

an investigation regarding possible molestation of the children at a former babysitter’s 

home; the children are in counseling, but Mother did not inform Father; (f) Father is more 

likely to facilitate the court-ordered parenting time, as Mother has been found in contempt 

twice for failing to follow parenting time orders; (g) Father’s child support arrearage is 

$3,273.73, some of which was due to non-payment while he was incarcerated for six 

months; CSEA filed a notice on October 29, 2018 indicating Father overpaid $1,770.73; 

(h) one former child care provider is under investigation; (i) Mother has willfully interfered 

with parenting time on at least two occasions; and (j) neither party indicated any plans to 

relocate out of Ohio. 

{¶20} The magistrate additionally made the following findings: Mother’s 

description of a “gash” on one child’s back is an exaggeration as it is a dot-like mark; 

Mother’s description of Father dressing the children in clothes “falling off them” is an 

exaggeration; Mother earns $12 per hour, 20-25 hours per week and it is appropriate to 

impute minimum wage full-time income to her; Father earns $8.30 per hour, 30-40 hours 

per week and is unable to find employment as a mechanic due to his felony conviction; 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 9 

Mother has called the police several times regarding marks on the children and once 

when a child had a urinary tract infection; the magistrate is concerned that Mother’s 

testimony is inconsistent; Mother has failed to follow prior court orders; Mother admits to 

wanting to limit Father’s time with the children; Mother exaggerates normal childhood 

scrapes; the magistrate recognizes Mother is actively involved with the children; Mother 

alleges Father fails to properly supervise the children and cites one occasion where the 

four year old fell and scraped her face; and the magistrate found bumps and scrapes are 

normal and do not constitute a failure to properly supervise. The magistrate also imputed 

minimum wage, full-time income to Mother and minimum wage, full-time income to 

Father. 

{¶21} The magistrate made the following recommendations: the shared parenting 

plan be terminated; Father should be named the residential parent and legal custodian of 

the children; the parties should follow an alternating week parenting time schedule with 

the parent who does not have the children for the week having a mid-week visit one 

evening; the children should remain in the New Philadelphia School District as long as 

one parent remains in the district; and while Mother is the obligor for child support 

purposes since Father is the residential and custodial parent, she does not have to pay 

any child support to Father because of their equal incomes. 

{¶22} Mother filed initial objections to the magistrate’s decision on November 16, 

2018 and supplemental objections on January 25, 2019. Mother argued: the magistrate 

erred in naming Father the residential parent and legal custodian of the children; the 

magistrate erred with regards to failing to find Father in contempt for failing to pay child 

support while he was incarcerated; the magistrate erred with regards to determining 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 10 

income for both parties; the magistrate erred with regards to not splitting the tax 

exemption; and the magistrate erred with regards to not awarding her attorney fees. 

Father filed a response to Mother’s objections on February 15, 2019. Mother filed a reply 

on February 27, 2019. 

{¶23} The trial court issued a judgment entry on March 22, 2019. The trial court 

found the magistrate’s recommendations were supported by the evidence and were not 

an abuse of discretion. The trial court thus adopted the magistrate’s recommendations, 

except with the modification that Father shall be entitled to claim Q.C. for tax purposes 

and Mother shall be entitled to claim C.C. for tax purposes because both parents will have 

similar parenting time and income. 

{¶24} Mother appeals the judgment entry of the Tuscarawas Court of Common 

Pleas and assigns the following as error: 

{¶25} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE FATHER 

SHOULD BE NAMED THE RESIDENTIAL PARENT AND LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF THE 

MINOR CHILDREN. 

{¶26} “II. THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE 

PARTIES.” 

I. 

{¶27} In her first assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court committed 

error in determining it is in the best interest of the children for Father to be named the 

residential and custodial parent for the children. 

{¶28} On appeal, our standard of review in assessing the disposition of child 

custody matters is that of abuse of discretion. Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 523 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 11 

N.E.2d 846 (1988). 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, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 

Furthermore, as an appellate court reviewing evidence in custody matters, we do not 

function as fact finders; we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of 

witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent, and credible 

evidence upon which the fact finder could base his or her judgment. Dinger v. Dinger, 

5th Dist. Stark No. 2001CA00039, 2001-Ohio-1386. Because custody issues are some 

of the most difficult and agonizing decisions a trial judge must make, he or she must have 

wide latitude in considering all the evidence. Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 674 

N.E.2d 1159 (1997). 

{¶29} In addressing a motion for termination of shared parenting plan, a trial court 

must determine (1) whether a change in circumstances has occurred; (2) whether 

termination or modification is in the children’s best interests; and (3) whether the 

advantage to the child resulting from the termination or modification outweighs any 

potential harm. Ford v. Ford, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2012 AP 03 0025, 2012-Ohio5454. 

{¶30} R.C. 3109.04(F) states, in determining the best interest of a child, the court 

shall consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to: (a) the wishes of the 

parents; (b) if the court has interviewed the child in chambers, the child’s wishes and 

concerns; (c) the child’s interaction with parents, siblings, and any other person who may 

significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to home, school, and 

community; (e) the mental and physical health of the persons involved in the situation; (f) 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 12 

the parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or 

visitation and companionship rights; (g) whether either parent has failed to make all child 

support payments; (h) whether either parent has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to 

any criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being abused or neglected; 

(i) whether one of the parents continuously and willfully denied the other parent’s right to 

parenting time; and (j) whether either parent is planning to establish a residence outside 

the state. 

{¶31} No one factor is dispositive. Baker-Chaney v. Chaney, 5th Dist. Holmes 

No. 16CA005, 2017-Ohio-5548. Rather, the trial court has discretion to weigh any and 

all relevant factors. Id. Absent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume 

the trial court considered all of the relevant factors. Id. 

{¶32} Mother contends the children are fine with her, but are not fine with Father 

and/or Board. Mother points to her testimony that Father did not provide the children with 

proper clothing, did not complete homework with the children, is unable to pay attention 

to the basic details of parenting, and chooses to blame everything on Mother. Mother 

essentially argues the trial court did not properly consider her testimony. However, as 

evidenced from the judgment entry, the trial court did consider Mother’s testimony, but 

found her testimony was inconsistent and an exaggeration of the circumstances. It is well 

established that the trial court, as the ultimate fact finder and issue resolver, is free to 

believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness. State v. Caldwell, 79 Ohio 

App.3d 667, 607 N.E.2d 1096 (4th Dist. 1992). 

{¶33} Mother also argues it is an abuse of discretion to name Father as the 

custodial parent because he was incarcerated for a significant period of time during the 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 13 

pendency of the case and the children have been in the care of Mother without any issues. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination. 

{¶34} The magistrate specifically noted she considered both Father and Mother’s 

felony criminal convictions in her determination of the best interests of the children. The 

magistrate also stated she specifically considered and weighed the fact that Mother has 

been so actively involved with the children. Though Mother was actively involved with the 

children, she also failed to follow court orders twice in this case, and stated she sought to 

limit Father’s time with the children. Her testimony as to homework and moving was 

inconsistent, and her allegations of Father’s failure to supervise and inability to care for 

the basic needs of the children were rebutted by Father’s testimony and the photographic 

evidence. The trial court was in the best position to conduct the analysis of the best 

interest factors and we cannot find anything in the record to suggest the trial court’s review 

was improper. See Ream v. Ream, 5th Dist. Licking No. 02-CA-000071, 2003-Ohio2144; Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00099, 2000 WL 1785734 (Dec. 

4, 2000). In this case, the trial court considered the factors enumerated in R.C. 

3109.04(F). R.C. 3109.04(F) provides the court with discretion to weigh the relevant 

factors and determine how those factors apply to the child’s best interests. Wooten v. 

Casey, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 03CA15, 2004-Ohio-55. 

{¶35} The magistrate thoroughly analyzed the factors and the findings were 

supported by the record. We emphasize that in proceedings involving the custody and 

welfare of children, the power of the trial court to exercise discretion is particularly 

important. Thompson v. Thompson, 31 Ohio App.3d 254, 511 N.E.2d 412 (4th Dist. 

1981), citing Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952). Upon review of 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 14 

the record, we find the magistrate and judge duly considered the statutory “best interest” 

factors, and the court’s decision that it is in the best interest of the children to name Father 

the residential and custodial parent is supported by a substantial amount of competent 

and credible evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. 

{¶36} Mother’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

II. 

{¶37} In her second assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court erred in 

computing the income of the parties for child support purposes. The abuse of discretion 

standard is the appropriate standard of review in matters concerning child support. Booth 

v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). 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, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). Furthermore, as an appellate court, we are not 

the trier of fact. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent, and 

credible evidence upon which the factfinder could base his or her judgment. Cross Truck 

v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. Stark No. CA-5758, 1982 WL 2911 (Feb. 10, 1982). 

{¶38} The original shared parenting plan ordered Father to pay Mother child 

support. Upon termination of the shared parenting plan, the magistrate named Father as 

the residential parent and legal custodian. The magistrate recalculated the parties’ child 

support obligations to reflect Father as the primary caregiver and Mother as the child 

support obligor, but did not order Mother to pay any support based upon her income. 

{¶39} The statutory child support computation worksheet includes space for the 

assessment of each parent’s income, which is defined, for a parent who is unemployed 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 15 

or underemployed as “the sum of the gross income of the parent and any potential income 

of the parent.” R.C. 3119.01(C)(5)(b). Whether a parent is “voluntarily underemployed” 

and the amount of potential income to be imputed to a child support obligor are matters 

to be determined by the trial court based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 

{¶40} “In deciding if an individual is voluntarily under-employed or unemployed, 

the court must determine not only whether the change was voluntary, but also whether it 

was made with due regard to obligor’s income-producing abilities and his or her duty to 

provide for the continuing needs of the child.” G.P. v. L.M., 5th Dist. Morrow No. 

16CA0005, 2016-Ohio-7955. The decision to impute income to a parent is within the trial 

court’s sound discretion. Id. The parent claiming that his or her former spouse is 

voluntarily under-employed has the burden of proof. In re B.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 

24605, 2009-Ohio-4660. Among the factors a trial court should consider are the parent’s 

prior employment experience, the parent’s education, the availability of employment 

where the parent resides, the prevailing wage where the parent resides, and whether 

there is evidence the parent has the ability to earn the imputed income. R.C. 

31109.01(C)(11). 

{¶41} Mother contends her income should not have been imputed at 40 hours per 

week, as when the parties divorced, her income was set at $16,952 and there was no 

testimony presented she is able to work more or that she has training in any field in which 

she could earn more income. 

{¶42} We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s adopting the magistrate’s 

calculation of Mother’s income. Mother testified she makes $12 per hour and works 

twenty-five hours per week. The magistrate stated in her decision that she imputed 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 16 

Mother’s gross income at minimum wage full-time, which would be $17,784. However, in 

the child support worksheet, the magistrate listed Mother’s yearly gross income from 

employment as $15,600, which represents twenty-five hours per week at $12 per hour, 

with an additional $1,664 in other income, for a total of $17,264 annually. Utilizing even 

the higher figure of $17,784, at Mother’s hourly income of $12 per hour, she would have 

to work 28.5 hours per week to attain this figure. Despite Mother’s argument that there 

was no testimony presented that she could work more hours, after Mother testified she 

normally works twenty to twenty-five hours per week, counsel asked, and “Is that the max 

they’ll give you?” Mother stated, “they can give me more, yes.” Upon review, we find the 

record provides competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s determination 

of Mother’s income and the finding does not constitute an abuse of discretion. 

{¶43} Mother also argues the trial court committed error in determining Father’s 

income, as he has training in the mechanical field and was making $21 per hour prior to 

his incarceration and thus $21 per hour and $42,000 per year should be imputed to him, 

as he has training in the field and has shown he has been able to earn more income than 

he is now. 

{¶44} Upon review, we find there is competent and credible evidence to support 

the trial court’s finding of $17,264 per year as Father’s income and that finding does not 

constitute an abuse of discretion. Father testified he is employed at Worth Carter 

Construction making $8.30 per hour and working approximately thirty to forty hours per 

week. Prior to going to prison, Father worked as a mechanic, making $21 per hour. 

Father stated he has looked for other employment as a mechanic. Specifically, Father 

testified he was looking to multiple car dealerships in the area, applied at Gradall, and 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 17 

had an interview as a maintenance mechanic at Frito-Lay, however, he has been unable 

to obtain another job due to his felony conviction. 

{¶45} Mother cites her testimony that she believes Father has other sources of 

income, such as fixing vehicles, in support of her argument. However, Father testified he 

does not have any other source of income and does not earn income fixing vehicles. The 

trial court, as the ultimate fact finder and issue resolver, is free to believe all, part, or none 

of the testimony of each witness. State v. Caldwell, 79 Ohio App.3d 667, 607 N.E.2d 

1096 (4th Dist. 1992). Mother contends that since she is also a convicted felon, it is unfair 

to take that factor into consideration when determining Father’s income. However, as 

noted above, the decision to impute income to a parent is within the trial court’s sound 

discretion. Father specifically testified he has interviewed for mechanic positions, but has 

been unable to obtain them because of his felony conviction. Mother did not testify, nor 

present any evidence, that her felony conviction impacted her income and/or availability 

of employment for her. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

determination. 

{¶46} Mother’s second assignment of error is overruled. 
Tuscarwas County, Case No. 2019 AP 04 0013 18 

{¶47} Based on the foregoing, Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶48} The March 22, 2019 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Hoffman, J., and 

Delaney, J., concur