Court Opinion

ID: 9374872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:07:21.956583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.754704
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Sweet v. Sweet, 2023-Ohio-548.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                        GREENE COUNTY

 CATHERINE SWEET                                  :
                                                  :
       Appellant                                  :   C.A. No. 2022-CA-50
                                                  :
 v.                                               :   Trial Court Case No. 2012 DR 0171
                                                  :
 DAVID SWEET                                      :   (Appeal from Common Pleas Court-
                                                  :   Domestic Relations)
       Appellee                                   :
                                                  :

                                            ...........

                                            OPINION

                                    Rendered on February 24, 2023

                                            ...........

DAVID SWEET, Appellee, Pro se

CATHERINE SWEET, Appellant, Pro se

                                           .............

LEWIS, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant Catherine Sweet appeals from an order of the Greene County

Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, terminating child support. For the

following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
                                                                                         -2-

   I.      Facts and Course of Proceedings

        {¶ 2} On June 1, 2012, Catherine Sweet filed a complaint for divorce in the

Common Pleas Court of Greene County, Domestic Relations Division. According to the

complaint, Catherine had been married to David Sweet since April 24, 1993, and two

children were born of the marriage: Paige Sweet was born in June 1998, and Madison

Sweet was born in August 2004.

        {¶ 3} On September 18, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment and decree

of divorce. As part of the decree, Catherine was named the residential and custodial

parent, and David was ordered to pay child support relating to the two children. Along

with the final judgment and decree, the parties were served with a copy of the child

support worksheet and a copy of the “Mandatory Standard Notice Regarding Support,

Medical Insurance, and Parental Access.” The Notice provided, in part:

              Child support for each child shall continue until that child reaches the

        age of eighteen and pursuant to ORC §3103.03 no longer continuously

        attends on a full-time basis any recognized and accredited high school, is

        otherwise emancipated, or unless otherwise ordered by the Court. * * *

              ***

              EACH PARTY TO THIS SUPPORT ORDER MUST NOTIFY THE

        CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN WRITING OF HIS OR

        HER    CURRENT       MAILING      ADDRESS,       CURRENT       RESIDENCE

        ADDRESS, CURRENT RESIDENCE, TELEPHONE NUMBER, CURRENT

        DRIVER’S     LICENSE     NUMBER,       AND     OF    ANY    CHANGES        IN
                                                                                       -3-

      INFORMATION. EACH PARTY MUST NOTIFY THE AGENCY OF ALL

      CHANGES UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE FROM THE COURT OR AGENCY,

      WHICHEVER ISSUED THE SUPPORT ORDER.

(Emphasis sic.)

      {¶ 4} On March 17, 2017, the trial court issued a Decision and Order in which it

found that the Greene County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”) had

conducted an administrative investigation regarding whether child support should be

terminated relating to Paige. The CSEA’s “Termination Determination” stated that child

support relating to Paige would terminate in January 2017, because she was 18 years

old and no longer attending an accredited school. The trial court noted that neither party

had timely filed a motion objecting to the termination pursuant to R.C. 3119.91.

Therefore, the trial court adopted, approved, and made a final appealable order the

CSEA’s administrative decision terminating child support relating to Paige.

      {¶ 5} On August 5, 2022, the Greene County CSEA issued and served a document

entitled “Findings and Recommendations to Terminate a Child Support Order.”

According to this document, “[t]he Greene County Child Support Enforcement Agency

(CSEA) has conducted an investigation to determine whether one of the administrative

termination reasons as described in the Ohio Administrative Code rule 5101:12-60-50,

exists to terminate a child support order.” Ultimately, the document contained findings

and recommendations to terminate a child support order relating to Madison due to

Madison”s turning 18 years of age and not attending an accredited school. The Findings

and Recommendations stated the rights of the parties to request an administrative
                                                                                          -4-

hearing and to file objections. Copies of the Findings and Recommendations were sent

to the parties and the clerk of courts.

         {¶ 6} On September 1, 2022, the trial court issued an Order finding that the Greene

County CSEA had conducted an administrative investigation and had issued an August

5, 2022 “Termination Determination” terminating child support related to Madison.

Because neither parent had timely filed a motion with the trial court objecting to the

termination, the court adopted, approved, and made a final appealable order the agency’s

administrative decision terminating child support.       Catherine timely filed a notice of

appeal from the September 1, 2022 Order.

   II.      The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Terminating Child Support

         {¶ 7} Catherine’s appellate brief consists of the following paragraph:

                Madison M. Sweet turned 18 yrs. old [in August] 2022. The child

         support was stopped because she turned 18 and I didn’t receive any

         paperwork from child support due to having to move and I didn’t know that

         child support would be sending me anything. I haven’t done any of this

         before and I didn’t know until I called the child support office. Madison is

         still in high school currently and lives at home. So I’m asking for the child

         support to be reinstated until she graduates. I went for years of not getting

         anything even though it was ordered. Her father is still in arrears for about

         $14,000.00. I appreciate your time.

Attached to Catherine’s one-page statement is what appears to be a copy of an October
                                                                                        -5-

19, 2022 progress report from Fairborn Digital Academy purportedly showing that

Madison was then attending school there as a Junior.

       {¶ 8} Initially, we note that Catherine’s appellate submission does not meet the

requirements for an appellate brief set forth in App.R. 16. Further, we cannot consider

as evidence the document she attached to her appellate submission since that document

was not presented to the trial court. Despite the deficiencies in Catherine’s brief, we can

construe Catherine’s appellate submission as raising the following assignment of error:

the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the child support agency’s termination of

child support.

       {¶ 9} Generally, an abuse of discretion standard is the appropriate standard of

review in matters concerning child support. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541

N.E.2d 1028 (1989). “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an attitude that is

unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community

Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990), quoting

Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). “It is to

be expected that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are

simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.” Id.

       {¶ 10} In Ohio, a parent’s obligation to pay child support normally terminates when

the child reaches the “age of majority.” Hess v. Ugorec, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29468,

2021-Ohio-189, ¶ 14, citing Greene v. Greene, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18155, 1997 WL

679906, *3 (Oct. 22, 1997). “Age of majority” is defined as “[a]ll persons of the age of

eighteen years or more, who are under no legal disability, are capable of contracting and
                                                                                           -6-

are of full age for all purposes.” R.C. 3109.01. There are, however, circumstances that

may extend a parent’s duty to pay child support beyond this age of majority.              For

example, R.C. 3119.86(A)(2) provides that the duty of support shall continue beyond a

child’s eighteenth birthday if “the child continuously attends a recognized and accredited

high school on a full-time basis on and after the child's eighteenth birthday.”

       {¶ 11} R.C. 3119.88(A) and Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-50(D) provide parents

and the CSEA with guidance as to when child support should be terminated. R.C.

3119.88(A) provides, in part:

              (A) Reasons for which a child support order should terminate through

       the administrative process under section 3119.89 of the Revised Code

       include all of the following:

              (1) The child attains the age of majority if the child no longer attends

       an accredited high school on a full-time basis and the child support order

       requires support to continue past the age of majority only if the child

       continuously attends such a high school after attaining that age;

              (2) The child ceases to attend an accredited high school on a full-

       time basis after attaining the age of majority, if the child support order

       requires support to continue past the age of majority only if the child

       continuously attends such a high school after attaining that age[.]

       {¶ 12} Similarly, Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-50(D) provides that:

              (D) The      CSEA        shall initiate an   administrative   termination

       investigation to determine whether the child support order should terminate
                                                                                          -7-

       when there is a required administrative termination reason. A required

       administrative termination reason includes all of the following:

              (1) The child attains the age of majority if the child no longer attends

       an accredited high school on a full-time basis and the child support order

       requires support to continue past the age of majority only if the child

       continuously attends a high school after attaining that age;

              (2) The child ceases to attend an accredited high school on a full-

       time basis after attaining the age of majority, if the child support order

       requires support to continue past the age of majority only if the child

       continuously attends such a high school after attaining that age[.]

       {¶ 13} Once a child support enforcement agency concludes that child support

should be terminated, the obligor and obligee have 14 days in which to request an

administrative hearing or file objections with the trial court. R.C. 3119.91. If either party

files an objection, “the court shall set the case for a hearing for a determination as to

whether the support order should be terminated or whether the court should take any

other appropriate action.” R.C. 3119.92. But if neither party files an objection, “the

administrative hearing decision is final and will be filed with the court or in the

administrative case file.” Id.

       {¶ 14} In her appellate filing, Catherine contends that her child, Madison Sweet,

continued to attend an accredited high school after she turned 18 years of age. But the

record that was before the trial court did not contain any evidence supporting this

contention. Rather, the trial court was presented with a determination by the CSEA that
                                                                                        -8-

contradicted this contention. According to the CSEA’s investigation, Madison was no

longer attending an accredited high school at the time she turned 18. Further, Catherine

did not object to the CSEA’s determination or request an administrative hearing.

Consequently, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting

the CSEA’s determination that child support should be terminated.

       {¶ 15} Finally, Catherine contends she “didn’t receive any paperwork from child

support due to having to move and I didn’t know that child support would be sending me

anything. I haven’t done any of this before and I didn’t know until I called the child

support office.” But this had been done before. The parties’ older child, Paige, was the

subject of child support termination proceedings in 2017 that involved the same process

that occurred in 2022. Also, we cannot assume that Catherine did not receive notice of

the CSEA’s decision when the decision itself stated that a copy was being served on both

the obligor and obligee. Moreover, since September 18, 2012, Catherine had had a

continuing duty to provide the CSEA with her current residential address. We note that,

if Catherine has evidence that she had kept the CSEA updated on her current address

information and that the CSEA failed to provide her with notice of its decision terminating

child support, she may be able to seek relief with the trial court through the filing of a

Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate. See Hess v. Ugorec, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29468, 2021-

Ohio-189, ¶ 23.

       {¶ 16} Based upon the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court

abused its discretion in terminating child support related to Madison.          Therefore,

Catherine’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
                                                                                      -9-

   III.      Conclusion

          {¶ 17} Having overruled Catherine Sweet’s assignment of error, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

                                      .............

TUCKER, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.