[Cite as In re D.S., 2014-Ohio-3596.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101012

IN RE: D.S. 

A Minor Child 

[Appeal by M.J., Mother] 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the 

 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case No. PR 13709823 

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and Stewart, J. 

 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 21, 2014 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

George W. MacDonald 

514 Glen Park Drive 

Bay Village, Ohio 44140 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE, CJFS-OCSS

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Joseph C. Young 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

P.O. Box 93894 

Cleveland, Ohio 44101 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.: 
{¶1} Mother M.J. appeals a child support order entered in the Cuyahoga County 

Court of Common Pleas. On appeal, M.J. argues that the magistrate incorrectly 

imputed income and assessed deductions not supported by the record. For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

{¶2} M.J. gave birth to D.S. on November 4, 2012. On July 9, 2013, the 

Cuyahoga Job and Family Services filed a complaint seeking to establish the parent-child 

relationship between D.S. and D.S., Sr., as well as an order for D.S., Sr. to pay child 

support. Genetic testing established, with 99.99 percent certainty, that D.S., Sr. was the 

father of D.S. 

{¶3} The trial court held a hearing on this matter and issued a decision noting that 

D.S., Sr. admitted in open court that he was the father and thus finding the parent-child 

relationship to be established. The magistrate found that D.S. resides with M.J., 

receives food stamps and health insurance from the county and that M.J. had potential 

annual earnings of $13,750. The magistrate designated M.J. as the residential parent 

and legal custodian of D.S., pursuant to R.C. 3109.042. 

{¶4} The magistrate found that D.S., Sr. was voluntarily unemployed or 

voluntarily underemployed and that if he was part-time employed, he would be earning 

at least $12,246 annually. The magistrate found that D.S., Sr. had five other children 

and, pursuant to a guideline sheet prepared under R.C. Chapter 3119, found D.S., Sr.’s 

monthly child support obligation to be $50 a month. 
{¶5} On January 2, 2014, M.J. filed objections to the magistrate’s decision 

arguing that the magistrate erred in finding D.S., Sr.’s support obligation to be $50. 

The trial court overruled M.J.’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision on 

January 8, 2014. M.J. appeals asserting the following sole assignment of error: 

I. The trial court erred in entering an order of child support in which 

it imputed income incorrectly and assessed deductions not 

supported in the record. 

{¶6} A trial court has broad discretion to calculate child support. Absent an abuse of 

discretion, an appellate court will not disturb a child support order. Wright v. Wright, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 91026, 2009-Ohio-128 ¶ 13, citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 

N.E.2d 1028. Similarly, the issue of whether income is imputed to a parent for purposes of 

calculating child support pursuant to R.C. 3119.01 is committed to the sound discretion of the 

trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re T.S., 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 96657, 2011-Ohio-6756, ¶ 8, citing Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 112, 616 

N.E.2d 218 (1993). An abuse of discretion implies the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 

(1993). 

{¶7} In general, the amount of child support calculated using the child support guidelines 

and child support computation worksheet is “rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of 

child support, although the trial court may deviate from that amount.” Gentile v. Gentile, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97971, 2013-Ohio-1338, ¶ 49, citing R.C. 3119.03 and Marker v. Grimm, 

65 Ohio St.3d 139, 601 N.E.2d 496 (1992), paragraph one of the syllabus. For a parent who is 

voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, a trial court calculates that parent’s potential income 

pursuant to the factors enumerated in R.C. 3119.01(C)(11)(a). 
{¶8} M.J. argues that the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate’s factual findings 

regarding D.S., Sr.’s imputed income and his credits for the support of his five other children. 

In fact, M.J. describes the deductions the trial court attributed to D.S., Sr.’s other children as 

“unsupported.” However the numbers disputed by M.J. are initial figures entered into the 

worksheet, not calculations derived from the worksheet. In objecting to the magistrate’s 

decision, M.J. argued that her grounds for objections did not require reference to the transcript 

of the hearing because her arguments were based on alleged errors in the calculation of support. 

Similarly, D.S., Sr. has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing. As the court 

stated in Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980): 

The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant. 

This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by 

reference to matters in the record. * * *. When portions of the transcript 

necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the 

reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, 

the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s 

proceedings, and affirm. 

{¶9} In this instance, M.J. has not provided us with a transcript of the proceedings 

necessary to evaluate her argument that the magistrate made incorrect factual findings regarding 

D.S., Sr.’s income and obligations stemming from his other children. Finding no error in a 

calculation derived from the worksheet, we are constrained to presume regularity and summarily 

reject her assignment of error. In re Z.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96304, 2011-Ohio-2936, ¶ 7. 

 

{¶10} Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
 It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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. 

 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and 

MELODY J. STEWART J., CONCUR