Burton v. Harris

• Decision Date: 21 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12AP–518.,12AP–518.
• Citation: 987 N.E.2d 745
• Parties: Terence D. BURTON, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Paula G. HARRIS, Defendant–Appellant, (Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency, Appellant).
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

987 N.E.2d 745

Terence D. BURTON, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. Paula G. HARRIS, Defendant–Appellant,(Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency, Appellant).

No. 12AP–518.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

March 21, 2013.

Mark L. Rhea and Lauren E. Flynn, for appellant Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency.

KLATT, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“FCCSEA”), appeals a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, that refused to allow FCCSEA to intervene in the proceedings. For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶ 2} Paula G. Harris (“Harris”) is the mother of Teryn Burton, who was born on May 24, 1995. FCCSEA determined that Terence D. Burton (“Burton”) is the father of Teryn Burton. In an administrative order issued March 14, 1997, FCCSEA required Burton to pay child support of $358.81 per month, plus a processing charge, effective March 11, 1997. Burton objected to the administrative order and sought a court hearing. When Burton did not appear for the hearing, the magistrate recommended that the trial court approve and adopt the administrative order. In a July 16, 1997 judgment, the trial court followed the magistrate's recommendation.

{¶ 3} On November 2, 2004, FCCSEA exercised its statutory authority under R.C. 3119.60 and 3119.63 to review the trial court's July 16, 1997 child support order. FCCSEA recommended that the trial court decrease the amount of child support to $255.10 per month, plus a processing charge, effective November 1, 2004. Upon objection to its recommendation, FCCSEA held an administrative hearing. In the resulting administrative order, FCCSEA altered its earlier recommendation. After giving Burton credit for the expense of health insurance for Teryn Burton, FCCSEA calculated the amount of child support at $202.38 per month, plus a processing charge.

{¶ 4} Harris requested a court hearing on the revised amount of child support. When Harris did not appear at the hearing, the magistrate recommended that the trial court adopt and approve the administrative modification of child support. In a January 31, 2006 judgment, the trial court followed the magistrate's recommendation.

{¶ 5} On June 8, 2011, FCCSEA reviewed the trial court's January 31, 2006 child support order. FCCSEA recommended that the trial court adopt an order requiring: (1) Harris to provide private health insurance coverage for Teryn Burton; (2) Burton to pay child support of $435.52 per month, plus a processing charge, or, if Teryn Burton's private health insurance lapsed, child support of $268.23 per month and cash medical support of $82.00 per month, plus a processing charge; and (3) each party to pay 50 percent of Teryn Burton's health care costs not covered by insurance.

{¶ 6} Burton requested a court hearing to seek a deviation from the child support amount set in the June 8, 2011 administrative adjustment recommendation. FCCSEA moved to be joined as a party to the proceedings. The trial court granted FCCSEA's motion.

{¶ 7} At the September 7, 2011 hearing, the magistrate revisited FCCSEA's motion. In answer to the magistrate's questioning, FCCSEA's attorney represented that neither Harris nor Teryn Burton were receiving public assistance benefits. Although Teryn Burton had received benefits at one time, Burton owed no arrearages that would compensate the state for the benefits provided. After ascertaining that the state had no direct financial interest in the proceedings, the magistrate denied FCCSEA's motion.

{¶ 8} The magistrate issued two decisions. In the first, the magistrate recommended a downward deviation from the amount of child support that FCCSEA recommended. The trial court issued a judgment approving and adopting that decision, and neither party has appealed from that judgment.

{¶ 9} In the magistrate's second decision, she addressed her denial of FCCSEA's motion to intervene. FCCSEA objected to the magistrate's second decision. In a May 17, 2012 decision and judgment, the trial court overruled FCCSEA's objection and affirmed the magistrate's decision. The trial court held that no statute provided FCCSEA with a right to be a party to the court hearing. The trial court stated that FCCSEA could move to intervene under Civ.R. 24, but, in the instant case, FCCSEA failed to present the court with any reason to necessitate intervention.

{¶ 10} FCCSEA now appeals the May 17, 2012 judgment and assigns the following errors:

I. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT EXCLUDED THE FCCSEA FROM A HEARING WHEN THE FCCSEA WAS ATTEMPTING TO CARRY OUT ITS STATUTORY DUTIES PURSUANT TO R.C. 3125.01, ET SEQ. AND IN REQUIRING THE FCCSEA TO

BE FORMALLY JOINED AS A PARTY.

II. THE COURT ERRED IN APPLYING R.C. 119.12 AS IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT OBJECTION HEARINGS HELD PURSUANT TO R.C. 3119.60, ET SEQ.

III. THE COURT ERRED AS THE JUDGE'S RULING EXCLUDING THE FCCSEA FROM OBJECTION HEARING PROCEEDINGS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.

{¶ 11} By its first assignment of error, FCCSEA argues that it has a statutory right to participate as a party in the court proceedings that follow an objection to an administrative decision adjusting a court-issued child support order. We disagree.

{¶ 12} The General Assembly has adopted a scheme, supplemented by administrative rule, that governs when and how a child support enforcement agency may review and adjust a court-issued child support order.¹ That scheme also sets forth the procedure by which a court may review the revised amount of child support calculated by a child support enforcement agency. According to that scheme, a child support enforcement agency, an obligor, or an obligee may initiate an administrative review of a child support order. R.C. 3119.60; Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.1. Prior to formally beginning review, the child support enforcement agency must establish a date on which the review will begin, notify the parties ² of the review and the date on which the review will begin, and request that the parties provide the agency with certain financial and health insurance documents. R.C. 3119.60; Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.3(E).

{¶ 13} On the designated date, the child support enforcement agency must calculate a revised amount of child support in accordance with R.C. 3119.02 and Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–45–10. R.C. 3119.63(A); Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.4(A). Then, the child support enforcement agency must incorporate its findings and conclusions into an “Administrative Adjustment Recommendation” and mail that document to the parties. R.C. 3119.63(B); Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.4(C). If neither party objects to the revised amount of child support, the child support enforcement agency must submit the “Administrative Adjustment Recommendation” to the trial court. R.C. 3119.63(D) and (F); Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.4(D)(1). The trial court will then issue an order requiring the obligor to pay the revised amount of child support calculated by the child support enforcement agency. R.C. 3119.65.

{¶ 14} Either party may object to the revised amount of child support by filing a request for an administrative hearing. R.C. 3119.63(E); Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.6(B). The child support enforcement agency will then schedule and conduct a hearing. R.C. 3119.63(E); Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.6(A). After the hearing, the child support enforcement agency must issue an “Administrative Adjustment Hearing Decision.” Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.6(K). If a party disagrees with the “Administrative AdjustmentHearing Decision,” he or she may request a court hearing. R.C. 3119.63(E); Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.6(L)(1).

{¶ 15} In two instances, a party may circumvent the administrative hearing and request a court hearing directly from the child support enforcement agency's initial calculation of a revised amount of child support. An administrative hearing is unnecessary if the court order being reviewed contains a deviation granted under R.C. 3119.23 or 3119.24 or a party intends to request a deviation from the amount of child support to be paid. R.C. 3119.63(C); Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.5(A)(1)(a).

{¶ 16} Upon receiving a hearing request, the trial court must “schedule and conduct a hearing to determine whether the revised amount of child support is the appropriate amount and whether the amount of child support being paid under the court child support order should be revised.” R.C. 3119.66. The trial court must notify the obligor, obligee, and child support enforcement agency of the date, time, and location of the hearing. R.C. 3119.67. Within 15 days of receiving that notice, the child support enforcement agency must submit to the court the “Administrative Adjustment Recommendation,” the “Administrative Adjustment Hearing Decision,” if one exists, and any attachments to either document. Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.6(M). If supplementation of those documents is necessary, the trial court will order the parties to provide certain financial and health insurance documents. R.C. 3119.68.

{¶ 17} At the hearing, if the trial court determines that the revised child support amount calculated by the child support enforcement agency is the appropriate amount, it will issue an order requiring the obligor to pay the revised amount. R.C. 3119.70(A). If the trial court determines that the revised amount is not the appropriate amount, it will determine the appropriate amount and, if necessary, issue an order requiring the obligor to pay the amount determined by the court. R.C. 3119.70(B).

{¶ 18} Of the applicable statutes and rules, Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12–60–05.6(M) and (N) alone address the role of the child support enforcement agency in the court hearing. The child support enforcement agency's “only requirement is to submit the [specified] documents to the...