[Cite as Snell v. Andrews, 2013-Ohio-2915.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 99205 

SHYRRA SNELL, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES 

vs. 

DI’ANDRE ANDREWS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case No. AD 03901479 

BEFORE: McCormack, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Kilbane, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 3, 2013 
FOR APPELLANT

Di’Andre Andrews, pro se 

21131 Tracy Avenue 

Euclid, OH 44123 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

For Shyrra Snell, et al.

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

By: Salvatore Amata 

Assistant Public Defender 

1849 Prospect Avenue, E. 

Suite 222 

Cleveland, OH 44115 

For Cuyahoga Job and Family Services

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Yvonne C. Billingsley 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

3955 Euclid Avenue, Room 305E 

Cleveland, OH 44115 

By: Jeffrey M. Heller 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

P.O. Box 93894 

Cleveland, OH 44101 

For Shyrra Snell

Shyrra Snell, pro se 

4943 Banbury Court, Suite 5 

Cleveland, OH 44128
Guardians Ad Litem

Michael B. Granito 

24400 Highland Road 

Suite 162 

Richmond Hts., OH 44143 

Brian W. Sharkin 

Law Office of Brian Sharkin 

P.O. Box 770824 

Lakewood, OH 44107 
TIM McCORMACK, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Di’Andre Andrews (“Andrews”), appeals the trial 

court’s adoption of the Cuyahoga Job and Family Services — Office of Child Support 

Services’ (“CJFS”) (f.k.a. Cuyahoga County Support Enforcement Agency or “CSEA”), 

recommendation of a modified child support order. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm. 

Procedural History

{¶2} On July 30, 2012, CJFS conducted an administrative adjustment and review 

hearing regarding Andrews’s child support order. As a result of this hearing, the CJFS 

recommended that Andrews’s child support order should increase, effective August 1, 

2012, from $100 per month to the following: $261.93 per month, plus $75 cash medical 

payment, when health insurance is not provided, and $291.33 per month when health 

insurance is provided. The recommendation included a child support computation 

worksheet. 

{¶3} The CJFS’s recommendation stated that all parties involved have a right to 

request an administrative adjustment hearing should the party or parties disagree with the 

results of the administrative review. The recommendation provides that such request 

“be received within fourteen (14) calendar days plus three (3) business days of the date 

this notice was mailed.” The recommendation further provides that the new support 

order will be issued, incorporating the findings and recommendations, if no request for 

hearing is made. Neither party requested a hearing. 
{¶4} On October 25, 2012, CJFS filed its recommendation with the juvenile 

court. The court, on November 1, 2012, adopted CJFS’s recommendation and ordered 

the support obligation to be increased as recommended. 

Assignment of Error

The court erred by failing to properly record the father[’s] earning[s], thus 

skewing the proper calculation of child support. 

Law and Analysis

{¶5} In his only assignment of error, Andrews argues that the trial court erred in 

calculating his income for purposes of adjusting his child support obligations, stating that 

his circumstances have changed and he has experienced a thirty percent decrease in 

income. 

{¶6} A trial court’s decision regarding a child support obligation falls within the 

court’s discretion, and it will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. 

Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio St.3d 386, 390, 1997-Ohio-105, 686 N.E.2d 1108, citing Booth 

v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). A trial court abuses its 

discretion when it exhibits an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. 

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

{¶7} R.C. 3119.60 through 3119.79 govern the administrative and judicial 

process of reviewing support orders. R.C. 3119.63 provides the procedure the child 

support enforcement agency must follow when reviewing a court child support order. It 

states that after the agency calculates a revised amount of child support, the parties have a 
right to request an administrative hearing on the revised amount. R.C. 3119.63(B). It 

further provides that, “unless the obligor or obligee requests an administrative hearing on 

the proposed change within fourteen days after receipt of the notice * * *,” the revised 

amount will be submitted to the court for inclusion in a revised court child support order. 

Id. 

{¶8} R.C. 3119.65 vests the trial court with the authority to issue a modified 

order of child support when neither party requests a hearing on the revised amount. 

DeJesus v. DeJesus, 170 Ohio App.3d 307, 2007-Ohio-678, 866 N.E.2d 1145, ¶ 23 (9th 

Dist.). The statute provides as follows: 

If neither the obligor nor the obligee requests a court hearing on a revised 

amount of child support to be paid under a court child support order in 

accordance with [R.C. 3119.63], the court shall issue a revised court child 

support order to require the obligor to pay the revised amount of child 

support calculated by the child support enforcement agency. 

R.C. 3119.65. 

{¶9} In this case, CJFS calculated a revised amount of child support and filed its 

reviewed findings and recommendation in accordance with the statute. The record 

shows that the parties were notified of the recommendation. There is no evidence in the 

record, however, that either party requested a hearing on the revised amount of child 

support. In accordance with R.C. 3119.63, CJFS filed its recommendation with the 

juvenile court. The court, thereafter, and pursuant to the mandates of the statute, 

adopted CJFS’s recommendation and ordered the support obligation to be increased as 

recommended. 
{¶10} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting 

CJFS’s recommendation. Andrews’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶11} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellees recover of said appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the court to 

carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR