[Cite as In re J.B.G., 2017-Ohio-8017.]

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) CASE NO. 16 JE 0020 

) 

J.B.G. ) 

) OPINION 

 ) 

) 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Jefferson 

County, Ohio 

Case No. 2005 DN 7 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellee: Melissa N. Rawson, Pro se

101 Trails End Road 

Toronto, Ohio 43964 

No Brief Filed 

For Appellant: Stacey A. Moore, Pro se

#A695-822 

Belmont Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 540 

St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950-0540 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Carol Ann Robb 

Dated: September 29, 2017
[Cite as In re J.B.G., 2017-Ohio-8017.]

WAITE, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Stacey Moore appeals from the decision of the Jefferson 

County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, refusing to modify his child support 

back to the date on which he was incarcerated instead of the date on which he filed 

his request. Based on the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignments of error are 

without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Factual and Procedural History 

{¶2} Appellant is the biological father of the child (J.B.G. dob: 5/23/1997). 

Appellant moved to Missouri before the child was born. The child is under the care of 

Appellee (who is the child’s biological aunt) and her husband, and has resided with 

them since 2002. Appellant returned to the area in 2010 and requested visitation 

with the minor child. Appellee sought child support. Appellant was ordered to pay 

child support in the amount of $230.45 per month in a judgment entry dated 

December 29, 2010. 

{¶3} In November of 2013, Appellant pleaded guilty to rape and gross sexual 

imposition involving a minor and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Appellant 

contends that in February of 2014 he contacted the Jefferson County Child Support 

Enforcement Agency (“JCCSEA”) seeking an administrative review of his child 

support, although the record before this Court reveals no letters, filings or other 

indication that such a request was made by Appellant, until an administrative 

adjustment recommendation filed by JCCSEA on October 28, 2015. An 

administrative review of Appellant’s child support obligation was conducted in 

October of 2015 due to Appellant’s filing of a motion for review on August 1, 2015. 
-2-

The review was conducted to determine whether Appellant’s child support obligation 

should be reduced or suspended while he was incarcerated. A magistrate’s decision 

was issued on October 29, 2015, modifying the support award to $50 per month, 

effective August 1, 2015. Appellant wrote a letter to the court on November 16, 

2015, objecting to the magistrate’s decision and contending that he earned only $21 

per month in prison. Appellant sent a second letter on December 1, 2015, now 

claiming he earned only $20 per month. In a judgment entry dated December 3, 

2015, the trial court sustained Appellant’s objection to the magistrate’s decision and 

set Appellant’s child support obligation at $0 per month, effective August 1, 2015. 

{¶4} On May 31, 2016, the JCCSEA filed a notice of JCCSEA investigation 

findings and conclusions. It notified the trial court and Appellant that the child 

support obligation should be terminated pursuant to R.C. 3119.89 because the child 

would be nineteen years of age and have graduated from high school in May of 

2016. The report also noted that Appellant had an outstanding child support 

arrearage of $4,663.34. 

{¶5} On July 5, 2016, the JCCSEA filed a notice with the trial court that 

neither party had requested an administrative hearing on the termination of the child 

support obligation. JCCSEA requested the May 31st notice be included in a revised 

order of support. In a magistrate’s decision dated July 6, 2016, the child support 

obligation was terminated effective May 23, 2016. The decision also stated that 

Appellant had a support arrearage of $4,663.34. 
-3-

{¶6} Appellant filed objections to the magistrate’s decision on July 18, 2016, 

contending that the arrearage should be reduced to reflect his incarceration and lack 

of income as of February of 2014, when he first made his request for support to be 

suspended or terminated. On August 1, 2016, the trial court overruled Appellant’s 

objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Appellant filed this pro se appeal 

on August 29, 2016. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 

COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT DID NOT COMPLETE A 

CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET AS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO 

OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 3119.79. 

{¶7} In his first assignment of error Appellant contends the trial court erred in 

not completing a child support calculation worksheet. Essentially, he argues that the 

trial court failed to recognize that Appellant’s reduction in income due to his 

incarceration constituted a change in circumstances that should date back to the 

beginning of his incarceration instead of the date on which he filed his request for 

modification. 

{¶8} Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s determination regarding a 

child support obligation will not be disturbed on appeal. Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio 

St.3d 386, 390, 686 N.E.2d 1108 (1997). Abuse of discretion connotes more than an 

error of law; it implies that the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 

(1983). 
-4-

{¶9} Moreover, a trial court’s ruling on the existence or nonexistence of “a 

substantial change in circumstances that was not contemplated at the time of the 

issuance of the original child support order or the last modification of the child support 

order[,]” for purposes of R.C. 3119.79(C), is reviewed under an abuse of discretion 

standard. Humiston v. Humiston, 9th Dist. No. 04CA0076-M, 2005-Ohio-4363, ¶ 13-

23. 

{¶10} R.C. 3119.02 requires a court to calculate child support using the 

statutory worksheet. R.C. 3119.03 creates a rebuttable presumption that a child 

support calculation, made pursuant to the basic child support schedule and 

applicable worksheet, is the correct amount of child support to be paid. 

{¶11} The child support modification statute provides, in pertinent part: 

(A) If an obligor or obligee under a child support order requests that the 

court modify the amount of support required to be paid pursuant to the 

child support order, the court shall recalculate the amount of support 

that would be required to be paid under the child support order in 

accordance with the schedule and the applicable worksheet through the 

line establishing the actual annual obligation. If that amount as 

recalculated is more than ten per cent greater than or more than ten per 

cent less than the amount of child support required to be paid pursuant 

to the existing child support order, the deviation from the recalculated 

amount that would be required to be paid under the schedule and the 

applicable worksheet shall be considered by the court as a change of 
-5-

circumstance substantial enough to require a modification of the child 

support amount. 

(B) In determining the recalculated support amount that would be 

required to be paid under the child support order for purposes of 

determining whether that recalculated amount is more than ten per cent 

greater than or more than ten per cent less than the amount of child 

support required to be paid pursuant to the existing child support order, 

the court shall consider, in addition to all other factors required by law to 

be considered, the cost of health insurance the obligor, the obligee, or 

both the obligor and the obligee have been ordered to obtain for the 

children specified in the order. * * * 

(C) If the court determines that the amount of child support required to 

be paid under the child support order should be changed due to a 

substantial change of circumstances that was not contemplated at the 

time of the issuance of the original child support order or the last 

modification of the child support order, the court shall modify the 

amount of child support required to be paid under the child support 

order to comply with the schedule and the applicable worksheet through 

the line establishing the actual annual obligation. 

R.C. 3119.79. 

{¶12} Here, the trial court modified Appellant’s child support obligation after 

receiving notice of his incarceration on August 1, 2015. A child support worksheet 
-6-

had been filed on October 28, 2015 wherein the JCCSEA recommended Appellant’s 

support obligation be reduced to zero during the period of his incarceration. In a 

decision dated October 29, 2015, the magistrate concluded the support order should 

be $50 per month. After Appellant filed objections to that decision, the trial court 

issued an entry setting the support order at $0 per month during the period of 

Appellant’s incarceration, effective August 1, 2015. This order was never appealed. 

{¶13} On February 24, 2016, the trial court issued an entry informing the 

parties that the minor child would be emancipated as of May of 2016, and that the 

parties should inform the court in writing of any changes in employment or income 

within seven days. No response was filed within that time period. JCCSEA then 

recommended its report on the termination of support due to the child’s emancipation 

be included in the termination order of support. The magistrate issued a decision on 

July 6, 2016, informing the parties that the child would be emancipated as of May 23, 

2016, and that Appellant had an arrearage of $4,663.34. Despite the fact that he 

failed to timely appeal the recalculation order, on July 18, 2016 Appellant filed pro se 

objections to the magistrate’s decision, arguing that the support obligation of $0 per 

month should have been ordered retroactive to the beginning of his incarceration in 

November of 2013, rather than set on the date of his petition seeking the 

recalculation: August 1, 2015. The trial court overruled Appellant’s objection, citing 

this Court’s holding in Rhodes v. Rhodes, 7th Dist. No. 00 BA 34, 2001 WL 1199877 

(Sep.25, 2001): “An obligor is not entitled to be relieved of his duty to support his 

children due to his commission of a crime and subsequent incarceration. Such 
-7-

entitlement would allow the obligor to obtain release from prison and owe no 

arrearage obligation to the child or the residential parent who had to shoulder the 

support burden on their own.” Id. at *3. 

{¶14} Appellant argues in his appellate brief that a change of circumstances 

occurred entitling him to a modification of his support order. Appellant does not take 

issue with the trial court’s calculation of $0 per month, only with the order’s effective 

date. 

{¶15} A trial court may modify an obligor’s child support obligation after notice 

of a petition seeking to modify the support order has been given to the obligee and 

obligor. R.C. 3119.84. The trial court need not make its modification of child support 

retroactive to the date the petition was filed, but that date may serve as a starting 

point for determining when the new obligation should become effective. Pacurar v. 

Pacurar, 132 Ohio App.3d 787, 726 N.E.2d 552 (7th Dist.1999). 

{¶16} Appellant argues that the effective date of his modification to $0 should 

have been the date on which his incarceration began in November of 2013, but 

provides no authority in support of this contention other than to reiterate that he has 

been earning only $20 a month since his prison term began, and that “[t]his same set 

of circumstances existed from the very day of appellant’s incarceration.” (Appellant’s 

Brf., pp. 5-6.) This may, in fact, be true. It does not provide any basis for making the 

effective date of his child support order retroactive to the time of Appellant’s 

choosing, particularly when Appellant’s own conduct has caused the circumstances 

on which a reduction is requested. Appellant is incarcerated for crimes he 
-8-

committed. He argues that he did not “contemplate being incarcerated” at the time 

child support was originally ordered. Id. at p. 5. However, it is through Appellant’s 

own conduct that he finds himself incarcerated. The trial court had discretion to set 

the effective date of the modification. Appellant never appealed the trial court’s order 

setting the date of August 1, 2015. Only now, when receiving an emancipation order, 

does Appellant object to the August of 2015 effective date. Without a timely petition 

to modify, the trial court had the discretion to overrule Appellant’s objection. 

{¶17} Appellant alternatively argues that the effective date of the modification 

should be February of 2014, when he alleges he originally contacted JCCSEA 

seeking an administrative hearing of his child support obligation. The record is 

devoid of any filing by Appellant seeking such a recalculation. A motion to modify 

child support order was filed, not by Appellant, but by JCCSEA on October 28, 2015. 

The magistrate’s decision imposing a child support obligation of $50 monthly, 

effective August of 2015 was issued on October 29, 2015. Appellant wrote a letter to 

the court dated November 16, 2015 which was construed as an objection to the 

magistrate’s decision. In this letter, he contended that he had attempted to contact 

JCCSEA in the past. However, he never addresses his objections to the August of 

2015 effective date. Appellant sent a second letter to the trial court on December 1, 

2015, in which he inquired about the minor child’s name change and reiterates that 

his prison income is $20 monthly. Again, Appellant never raised the issue of the 

August, 2015 effective date of the child support order. The trial court issued a 

judgment entry on December 3, 2015 in which it reduced Appellant’s child support 
-9-

obligation to $0 per month with the same August 1, 2015 effective date. It was only 

after the magistrate terminated the support order due to emancipation of the minor 

child and stated that Appellant had an arrearage of $4,663.34 on July 6, 2016 did 

Appellant raise an objection regarding the August 1, 2015 effective date of his 

support order. 

{¶18} It appears the court gave Appellant the benefit of the doubt in initially 

setting the effective date of August 1, 2015 for his support order, two months prior to 

the filing of his motion by JCCSEA. Appellant’s contention that his incarceration 

could not have been contemplated and he should have been completely free from 

any support ignores the fact that Appellant is incarcerated due to his own conduct. 

The trial court had the discretion to set the effective date of the child support 

modification. By ordering the modification retroactive to August 1, 2015, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion. Appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit 

and is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 

COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER ALL 

FACTORS TO DETERMINE IMPUTED INCOME AS REQUIRED 

PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 3119.01. 

{¶19} Although it is difficult to ascertain exactly what Appellant attempts to 

argue, here, he appears to contend that the trial court erred in calculating his imputed 

income as defined in R.C. 3119.01(C)(11)(a). Appellant reiterates that he has made 

only $20 per month since his incarceration began. Although not directly stated, 
-10-

Appellant appears to again take issue with the effective date of the child support 

obligation, as the amount is currently set at $0 per month effective August 1, 2015. 

Again, he seems to urge that this date be modified to November of 2013 when 

Appellant began serving his ten-year prison sentence. 

{¶20} R.C. 3119.05 governs the computation of income when a parent is 

incarcerated and reads, in pertinent part: 

(I) Unless it would be unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the 

best interests of the child, a court or agency shall not determine a 

parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and shall not 

impute income to that parent if either of the following conditions exist: 

* * * 

(2) The parent is incarcerated or institutionalized for a period of twelve 

months or more with no other available assets, unless the parent is 

incarcerated for an offense relating to the abuse or neglect of a child 

who is the subject of the support order or an offense under Title XXIX of 

the Revised Code when the obligee or a child who is the subject of the 

support order is a victim of the offense. 

{¶21} Appellant seems to argue that since he was bound by the prior monthly 

child support obligation from the time period when he began serving his sentence in 

November of 2013 until the effective date of the modified child support order of 

August 1, 2015, the trial court somehow engaged in an unfair calculation of imputed 
-11-

income. As noted above, Appellant is confusing the calculation of income for child 

support modification purposes with the effective date of the order. At the time the 

trial court instituted the prior child support obligation, Appellant was not incarcerated. 

The worksheet utilized in calculating his income for purposes of that order is in the 

record. The trial court did not impute any income to Appellant when it issued its order 

modifying Appellant’s child support obligation to $0. The trial court conducted this 

recalculation after the motion for modification was filed by JCCSEA. Although the 

magistrate’s decision originally set the modified child support obligation at $50 per 

month, after evaluating Appellant’s “objection” the trial court recalculated Appellant’s 

child support to $0 and set the effective date at a point a full two months prior to the 

filing for this modification by JCCSEA. The trial court did not err in calculating 

Appellant’s income for purposes of the child support modification. Appellant’s second 

assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. 

{¶22} Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion 

in its modification of Appellant’s child support obligation. The modification was 

adjusted to $0 per month during the term of his incarceration, no income was imputed 

to Appellant for that time, and the effective date of the order is two months prior to the 

filing of the motion to modify. Appellant’s assignments of error are without merit and 

are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

Robb, P.J., concurs.