Court Opinion

ID: 9893549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 17:09:30.025408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:27.990862
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Young v. Young, 2023-Ohio-3918.]

                                      COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                  FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TRAVIS YOUNG,                               :      JUDGES:
                                            :      Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellant               :      Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                            :      Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                        :
                                            :
JESSICA YOUNG,                              :      Case No. 2023 CA 00001
                                            :
        Defendant - Appellee                :      OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                           Appeal from the Fairfield County
                                                   Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
                                                   Relations Division, Case No. 10 PA
                                                   107

JUDGMENT:                                          Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                  October 27, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant                            For Defendant-Appellee

TRAVIS YOUNG, Pro Se                               JESSICA L. YOUNG, Pro Se
320 S. Columbus Street, Apt. B                     Address Unknown
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                          2

Baldwin, J.

      {¶1}    Appellant, Travis Young, appeals the decision of the Fairfield County Court

of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, finding that he was voluntarily

unemployed or voluntarily underemployed and imputing to him income of $48,000.00

annually for purposes of computing child support. Appellee is Jessica Young.

                    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

      {¶2}    This case had its genesis in the filing of a parentage action in 2010 when

Appellant sought to establish that a child of Appellee was his daughter. Appellant was

found to be the father of F.Y., but no child support was ordered. (Agreed Judgment Entry

and Decree of Shared Parenting, April 1, 2010). On April 19, 2010 the Fairfield County

Child Support Agency (CSEA) filed a motion noting that Appellee was receiving ADCR

cash assistance and MAC medical and requesting that the trial court establish child

support, but the record does not reflect that this motion was addressed. On January 31,

2011 Appellee moved for a modification of allocation of parental rights and other relief,

including a request for child support. Appellant filed a document on February 8, 2011

showing a gross income of $3306.00 per month and several debts. (Memorandum of

Plaintiff Regarding Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, Feb. 8, 2011).

      {¶3}    On April 6, 2017, Appellee moved the court for temporary order establishing

child support and alleging Appellant makes $4000.00 a month from self-employment.

Appellee filed a second memorandum in support of the temporary order motion on May 2,

2017, repeating the contention that Appellant received $4000.00 per month. Appellant

opposed Appellee’s request, but offered no information regarding his income.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                            3

       {¶4}   The trial court issued an order on May 23, 2017 finding Appellant’s annual

income for purposes of calculating child support was $48,000.00 and, using the child

support worksheet, ordered child support in the amount of $555.67 per month. Appellant’s

objection to the Magistrate’s order was denied and he did not pursue a timely appeal.

       {¶5}   On December 31, 2018, the Magistrate issued a decision after a two-day

trial and among the orders within the entry is the mandate that “child support as previously

ordered shall remain in full force and effect.” Appellant objections to the Magistrate’s

decision were denied. (Judgment entry, May 28, 2019). Appellant did not file a timely

appeal of this order.

       {¶6}   On August 28, 2018, Appellee filed a motion to have Appellant show cause

why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the support order of

May 23, 2017. The trial court found that Appellant failed to comply with the support order

and that he was in contempt of court for that omission. The trial court imposed a sentence

of thirty days in jail. (Judgment Entry, Jan. 24, 2019).

       {¶7}   On September 25, 2019, Appellant filed a notice of appeal including a list of

several judgments issued by the trial court beginning with a judgment described as being

issued on October 5, 2018 and ending with the judgment purportedly dated August 29,

2019. Appellant’s appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute on December 17, 2019.

(Travis Young v. Jessica Young, 5th Dist., Fairfield Case No 2019 CA 00045).

       {¶8}   On March 10, 2022, the Fairfield County Child Support Enforcement Agency

issued an Administrative Adjustment Recommendation regarding the support of

Appellant’s minor child, F.Y. The CSEA included a Child Support Computation Worksheet

that reflected potential income for Appellant in the amount of $48,000.00. The CSEA
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                                4

delivered a copy of the Recommendation to Appellant and Appellee. On April 18, 2022,

Appellant filed a request for a court hearing claiming that “[t]he figures used in the

administration adjustment recommendations are erroneous.” An Administrative

Adjustment Court Hearing was scheduled for May 26, 2022 and notices were sent to the

Appellant, Appellee and the CSEA.

       {¶9}   Appellant appeared for the administrative adjustment hearing, but claimed

he was not Travis Young and that Travis Young was a fictitious entity.                (Hearing

Transcript, May 26, 2022, p. 4, line 4, lines 18-19). He claimed that he had a similar name

and that he was the “beneficiary of this trust act” (Id. at p. 5, lines 1-2) and insisted that

he could only participate as a “beneficiary to this trust act” as that was his “only standing

here.” (Id. at p. 6, lines 4-9). In response, the trial court noted that Appellant had the right

to leave and the hearing would proceed, but Appellant decided to remain as an observer.

The trial court nevertheless offered him the opportunity to present evidence and he

offered his tax returns.

       {¶10} Abby Begley, Case Manager for CSEA testified that she conducted the

administrative review and that Appellant reported an annual income of $3000.00. She

explained that CSEA could not accept an income that was less than minimum wage, so “

* * * on the last guideline from the Court, Mr. Young had an income of $48,000.00, so he

was imputed at $48,000.00 since he had demonstrated an ability to earn that amount of

money.” (Hearing Transcript, May 26, 2022, p. 27, line 23, to p. 28, line 2).

       {¶11} Appellant mentioned that he had a question for Abby Begley and the court

responded “ * * * you may cross-examine Ms. Begley.” (Hearing Transcript, May 26, 2022,

p. 30, lines 14-15).       In response, Appellant did not ask any questions, but began
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                                5

reasserting his identity as a “beneficiary of this trust action” (Id. at p. 30, line 3) to which

the court responded that only parties may ask questions and thereafter Appellant did not

ask any further questions.

       {¶12} Exhibits were marked and submitted including the tax returns of Travis

Young which were altered by Appellant to exclude “ * * * the Social Security numbers that

aren’t mine in an attempt to obey the law.” (Id. at p. 33, lines 1-2).

       {¶13} The Magistrate issued a decision and found that Appellant was obligated to

pay child support in the amount of $546.71 using the income imputed to Appellant by the

CSEA, $48,000.00 annually. Appellant objected to the Magistrate’s decision and the trial

court rejected Appellant’s objections. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and has submitted

six assignments of error:

       {¶14} “I. THE FIRST ERROR, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT

HABITUALLY CONFUSES THE PARTIES IN THE CASE. AGAINST THE SUPREMACY

CLAUSE OF ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, THE XI AMENDMENT AND UNDER FEDERAL CODE TITLE 50 SECTION 7

(C) AND (E), OHIO RCIV.P 17.”

       {¶15} “II. IN THE SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, THE TRIAL COURT

ERROR BY NOT ADDRESSING THE LIVING MAN'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FED.

RCIV.P.8 AND OHIO RCIV.P. 8 (C).”

       {¶16} “III. IN THE THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, AN ALTERATION OF THE

RECORD TOOK PLACE AFTER THE HEARING ON MAY 22, 2023 AGAINST 18 U.S.

CODE§ 1028 (A),(4) (5), FRE 611(B) AND THE RECORD OF THE HEARING.”
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                          6

      {¶17} “IV. IN THE FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, THE TRIAL COURT

MADE A CLEARLY ERRONEOUS FINDING THE DEFENDANT/APPELEE HAD A

RIGHT TO RECEIVE SUPPORT OBLIGATION PAYMENT FROM APPELLANT.

AGAINST SECTION 8 OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MANUAL AND 42

U.S.C. 656 (A)(L ), CFR 433.146, ORC 3125.36.”

      {¶18} “V. IN THE FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, THE TRIAL COURT MADE

A CLEARLY ERRONEOUS FINDING THE SUPPORT OBLIGATION PAYMENTS

SHOULD BE FROM THE APPELLANT/ACCOUNT# XXX-XX-XXXX PAID TO CSEA.

AGAINST 45 CFR § 302.12, FED. FED.RCIV.P.19, OHIO RCIV.P. 17(A), OHIO R.CIV.P.

19(C).”

      {¶19} “VI. IN THE SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, THE TRIAL COURT MADE

A CLEARLY ERRONEOUS FINDING THE APPELLANT HAS AN INCOME OF 48000

CONTRADICTING THE ADMITTED EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. FED. R CIV. P. 52(A)(5),

FRE 61L(B), FRE701.”

                               PRELIMINARY MATTER

      {¶20} Appellant’s filing in this matter and other filings in the record reveal that

Appellant is an adherent to theories of individual sovereignty that we find “should be

rejected summarily, however they are presented.” United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753,

767 (7th Cir. 2011) as quoted in Best v. Lake Cnty. Courts, 2021 WL 5407402, *1. “United

States Federal courts and courts of Ohio have rejected jurisdictional challenges of those

claiming personal sovereignty. See Speed v. Mehan, E.D. Mo. No. 4:13CV1841, 2013

WL 5776301, *2 (Oct. 25, 2013) (Status as a Moorish-American citizen does not enable

a party to violate state and federal laws without consequence.); United States v.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                             7

Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 14-15 (2d Cir. 1984) (defendant's alleged status as “Vice

President and Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New

Afrika” did not entitle him to immunity from contempt prosecution); State v. Wyley, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102889, 2016-Ohio-1118, ¶ 12 (not acknowledging the Moorish

nation as a sovereign state); State v. Tucker, 2016-Ohio-1354, 62 N.E.3d 893, ¶ 9 (9th

Dist.) (observing that Moorish-American sovereign-citizen arguments have been

characterized as “gibberish”).” Mentor v. Jarvis, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2022-L-111, 2023-

Ohio-1538, ¶¶ 13.

        {¶21} “Adherents of the sovereign citizen's movement “ ‘follow their own set of

laws’ and, accordingly, ‘do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or

regulations’ as legitimate” (United States v. McLaughlin, 949 F.3d 780, 781 n 1 [2d

Cir.2019], quoting Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement,

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin [2011] ). Throughout the proceedings, defendant

referenced the Uniform Commercial Code, maintained that Supreme Court did not have

jurisdiction over him and asserted that he was not “the defendant,” but rather was a

secured party creditor and a trustee of the defendant.” People v. Williams, 189 A.D.3d

1978, 1981, 138 N.Y.S.3d 690, 693.

        {¶22} We reject Appellant’s “sovereign citizen” arguments including all references

to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Uniform Commercial Code as clearly

inapplicable in this matter, a domestic relations case. State v. Collins, 10th Dist. Franklin

No. 17AP-703, 2018-Ohio-2606, ¶ 11. Appellant’s addition of the words such as “under

duress” or reference to U.C.C. 1-308 to his signature has no affect in the context of this

case.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                            8

       {¶23} During the May 2022 hearing before the trial court Mr. Young insisted that

he was not Travis Young, but a beneficiary of an unidentified trust managed by an

unidentified trustee. He offered no evidence that he was not the Travis Young that was

the father of the minor child whose support was the subject of this action, nor did he claim

to not be the Travis Young who filed the request for this hearing. We reject Mr. Young’s

attempt to shield himself from liability by assuming a new identity, as a different identity

would not affect his obligation to support his minor child. Further, Mr. Young undermined

his charade when he offered Travis Young’s tax returns as exhibits and described the

social security numbers therein as “mine” further supporting the conclusion that the

reference to a trust, trustee and beneficiary is a fiction concocted by Mr. Young in an

attempt to avoid his legal obligations.

       {¶24} We also must disregard his citation to the Federal Rules of Evidence and

the Federal Civil Rules of Procedure as inapplicable in a domestic relations matter

proceeding in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas.

       {¶25} We likewise reject Appellant’s argument that the trial court lacked personal

jurisdiction over him in this matter. Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the court by

requesting a hearing and cannot not now contend that the trial court lacked personal

jurisdiction. Moore v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys., 162 Ohio St.3d 106, 2020-Ohio-4113, 164

N.E.3d 376 ⁋ 34.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶26} The abuse-of-discretion standard is the appropriate standard of review in

matters concerning child support. Kiehborth v. Kiehborth, 169 Ohio App.3d 308, 2006-

Ohio-5529, 862 N.E.2d 863, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.), quoting Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142,
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                           9

541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989). In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine that

the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id., citing

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

                                       ANALYSIS

                                            I.

      {¶27} In his First Assignment of Error, Appellant contends that the trial court erred

when it habitually confuses the parties in the case. Appellant’s argument is based upon

his conclusion that he was not Travis Young, but a beneficiary of some unidentified trust,

suggesting that the trial court or some other party was the trustee, that the trust held

sufficient funds to pay the debt and he was concerned that the trust had been mishandled.

This assignment and the argument are the product of the sovereign-citizen theories we

have rejected above and we conclude they are frivolous and need not be considered.

Further, as noted above, Appellant conceded that the tax returns of Travis Young, offered

by him as exhibits, contained his social security number, thus undermining Appellant’s

attempt to assume a new identity and escape his obligation to support his child.

      {¶28} The First Assignment of Error is denied.

                                            II.

      {¶29} In his Second Assignment of Error, Appellant claims the trial court erred by

not considering his affirmative defenses. Appellant filed a request for court hearing on

April 18, 2022 asserting that “[t]he figures used in the administration adjustment
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                              10

recommendations are erroneous” and the matter was heard by the Magistrate on May 26,

2022.

        {¶30} Civil Rule 8(C) requires that “[i]n pleading to a preceding pleading, a party

shall set forth affirmatively * * * [any] affirmative defense.” In the context of this matter,

we are not persuaded that this Rule is applicable, but assuming, arguendo, that

affirmative defenses may be argued, Appellant did not assert any affirmative defenses in

his filing, nor did he present any such defenses at the trial of the matter. Appellant’s

attempts to create an issue regarding affirmative defenses after the hearing through

supplemental pleadings was properly rejected by the trial court.

        {¶31} The Second Assignment of Error is denied.

                                             III.

        {¶32} In his Third Assignment of Error, Appellant contends an Alteration of the

Record took place after the hearing on May 22, 2023.

        {¶33} First, we note that the record contains no transcript for a hearing that

occurred on May 22, 2023. We will assume that Appellant is referring to the hearing that

occurred on May 26, 2022, but the error in the date is inconsequential as we find the

argument a frivolous recasting of the First Assignment of Error in which Appellant

contends that he does not identify as Travis Young, but as the “Living Man.”

        {¶34} The Third Assignment of Error is denied.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                             11

                                            IV.

       {¶35} In the Fourth Assignment of Error, Appellant contends that the trial court

erred when it found “Defendant/Appelee Had a right to receive Support Obligation

payment from Appellant.”

       {¶36} The matter before the trial court and the subject of this appeal is the hearing

conducted on May 26, 2022 at the request of Appellant. Appellant’s request alleged that

““[t]he figures used in the administration adjustment recommendations are erroneous”

and nothing more. He did not contend that the Appellee was not entitled to support and

that matter was not argued before the Magistrate at the hearing, so it cannot be

considered by this Court on appeal. R.A.R. v. C.E.R., 5th Dist. No. 2022 CA 00011, 2023-

Ohio-232, 206 N.E.3d 822, ¶ 98.

       {¶37} Not only were the issues of Appellant’s obligation to pay and Appellee’s

entitlement to receive support payments not presented at this hearing, they were decided

and confirmed by past judgments that have not been successfully appealed. Appellant’s

obligation to pay child support to Appellee was decided by the trial court in an order filed

May 23, 2017 and was subsequently confirmed in an order filed January 24, 2019 when

the Appellant was held in contempt for failure to pay the support. We find that the issue

of Appellant’s obligation to pay child support as well as Appellee’s right to receive it has

been decided and confirmed and that any argument to the contrary is now barred by the

doctrine of res judicata.

       {¶38} The Fourth Assignment of Error is denied.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                           12

                                           V.

       {¶39} In his Fifth Assignment of Error, Appellant contends “the trial court made a

clearly erroneous finding the Support Obligation payments should be from the

Appellant/account# xxx-xx-xxxx paid to CSEA.

       {¶40} This assignment of error fails on three grounds. First, the foundation of the

argument mirrors the argument in the First Assignment of Error, in which Appellant

contends that he identifies as an entity other than Travis Young, an argument that we

again reject as frivolous. We also reject this assignment of error because Appellant did

not list this alleged error in his request for hearing and did not present argument at the

hearing in support of this contention.

       {¶41} Finally, as noted in our discussion with regard to the Fourth Assignment of

Error, Appellant was ordered to make these payments in 2017 and was found in contempt

for failure to pay in 2019. The matter has been decided and any argument to contradict

the orders compelling Appellant to pay child support are barred by res judicata.

       {¶42} The Fifth Assignment of Error is denied.

                                           VI.

       {¶43} In his Sixth Assignment of Error, Appellant contends that “Trial Court made

a clearly erroneous finding the Appellant has an income of 48000 contradicting the

admitted evidence in the case.” Appellant contends that the record contains no evidence

to establish an income of $48,000.00 annually and that the witness, Abby Begley was not

a qualified witness.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                                13

       {¶44} Appellant did not object to the qualifications or testimony of Abby Begley,

so we find that he waived any objection to those issues and cannot present them to this

court on appeal. Further, Appellant chose to identify himself as a non-party entity who

was not representing the Appellant during the hearing and voluntarily waived his right to

cross-examine any witness.

       {¶45} While Appellant did refer to Travis Young, the name that he used to open

this case in 2010, as a fictional entity, he has never claimed or presented evidence to

dispute that he is the biological father of F.Y., his minor child and the subject of the support

order. As the biological parent of a minor child, Appellant is obligated to support his minor

child out of his property or labor. (R.C. 3103.03(A)). The trial court has authority to order

that a parent support their child in a child support proceeding and the trial court issued

such an order in 2017 after finding that his annual income was $48,000.00. (R.C.

3109.05(A)(1)). The support order was confirmed in 2018 and the trial court held

Appellant in contempt for failing to make payments toward that order in 2019.

       {¶46} We review the trial court’s decision in matters regarding child support for an

abuse of discretion. Kiehborth v. Kiehborth, 169 Ohio App.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-5529, 862

N.E.2d 863, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.), quoting 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 that the trial court's

decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id., quoting Blakemore v.

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). Furthermore, as an appellate

court, we are not the trier of facts. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant,

competent, and credible evidence upon which the factfinder could base its judgment.

Cross Truck v. Jeffries (Feb. 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                           14

Accordingly, a judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be

reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley

Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 8 O.O.3d 261, 376 N.E.2d 578.

      {¶47} In Rock v. Cabral (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 616 N.E.2d 218, syllabus, the

Supreme Court of Ohio held that “[w]hether 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.”

Similarly, what evidence a trial court considers in determining potential income is within

its discretion. Long v. Long, 162 Ohio App.3d 422, 428, 2005-Ohio-4052, 833 N.E.2d 809.

Kiehborth v. Kiehborth, 5th Dist. No. 05 CAF 08 0055, 169 Ohio App.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-

5529, 862 N.E.2d 863, ¶ 36.

      {¶48} The trial court found Appellant voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily

underemployed so his income includes his gross income and any potential income. (R.C.

3119.01(9)).   Potential income includes imputed income that the court determines

Appellant could have earned as determined from the criteria listed in R.C. 3119.01(17).

The record shows that the trial court concluded that Appellant’s income was $48,000.00

annually in orders issued in 2017, 2018 and, finally, in 2019 when he was held in contempt

for failure to pay support. Appellant did not successfully appeal those decisions and made

no effort to have the judgment regarding his income corrected.

      {¶49} The trial court completed an analysis of Appellant’s income and obligations

and Appellant has not provided any evidence, despite his multiple filings, that would

demonstrate that the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion in 2017 or in 2022

or that his ability to earn an income has changed since 2017. Appellant suggests the trial
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00001                                             15

court should restrict its analysis to his federal tax returns, but the trial court is not so

constrained once it concludes that the Appellant is voluntarily underemployed or

unemployed. Revised Code 3119.01 authorized the trial court to impute potential income

to Appellant and to rely on a number of factors which we find would include the prior

finding that Appellant was capable of earning $48,000.00 in the absence of any evidence

to establish an inability to work.

       {¶50} We find that the record contains relevant, competent, credible evidence in

support of the trial court’s decision and that it did not abuse its discretion.

       {¶51} The Sixth Assignment of Error is denied

       {¶52} The decision of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J

Hoffman, P.J. and

Wise, John, J. concur.