Richardson v. Ballard, CA95-02-032
| Decision Date | 19 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. CA95-02-032,CA95-02-032 |
| Citation | 113 Ohio App.3d 552,681 N.E.2d 507 |
| Parties | RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. BALLARD, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
John F. Holcomb, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Terri S. King, Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency, for appellant.
Mary Lou Kusel, Hamilton, for appellee.
This is an appeal of a decision suspending the child support obligation of plaintiff-appellee, Lowell Ballard, Jr., while he is incarcerated.
In January 1991, Ballard was adjudged to be the father of minor Lowell Gene Richardson, a.k.a. Bryan Charles Richardson, and was ordered to pay $30 per week in child support. He was also granted visitation rights. At the time of the adjudication, Ballard was on probation. In August 1994, he was incarcerated for violating the terms of his probation. Ballard then moved to reduce or terminate his child support obligation due to his incarceration. The trial court granted the motion on the authority of this court's decision in Peters v. Peters (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 275, 590 N.E.2d 777. Defendant-appellee, Steven C. Richardson, the child's maternal grandfather and legal custodian, now appeals the trial court's decision, and asserts the following assignments of error for review:
Assignment of Error No. 1:
"The trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to determine that appellee had demonstrated a change of circumstances as required by R.C. 3112.21 [sic, 3113.215] before modifying the appellee's child support obligations."
Assignment of Error No. 2:
"The trial court erred by modifying the appellee's child support obligation."
Richardson specifically requests that this court reconsider its decision in Peters. Because both assignments of error challenge the trial court's decision granting Ballard's motion to suspend child support payments while he is incarcerated, we consider them together.
The issue this court must address is whether criminal conduct resulting in incarceration is a voluntary or involuntary act by the obligor. When an obligor reduces his income voluntarily, the reduction does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances that warrants a modification of his child support obligations. See Brockmeier v. Brockmeier (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 689, 694, 633 N.E.2d 584, 587, quoting Shastid v. Shastid (Mar. 8, 1989), Hamilton App. No. C-870665, unreported. See, also, R.C. 3113.215(A)(5).
In Peters, this court found that although the criminal act leading to incarceration may be voluntary, the incarceration itself is involuntary and, therefore, is a change of circumstances that warrants the adjustment of child support orders. Peters, 69 Ohio App.3d at 277, 590 N.E.2d at 778. The dissent in Peters rejected the finding that "incarceration as the result of commission of a voluntary criminal act constitutes a change of circumstances which justifies modification of an order for child support." Id. at 277, 590 N.E.2d at 779 (Hendrickson, J., dissenting).
This court has reconsidered the implications of our decision in Peters. We now agree with the reasoning of other Ohio courts which have found incarceration due to criminal conduct to be voluntary. See, e.g., Brockmeier, 91 Ohio App.3d 689, 633 N.E.2d 584; Cole v. Cole (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 188, 590 N.E.2d 862; Williams v. Williams (Sept. 24, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-438, unreported, 1992 WL 246020; Mannasmith v. Mannasmith (July 26, 1991), Marion App. No. 9-90-44, unreported, 1991 WL 217317. As the court in Williams stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballinger v. Wingate, No. FA97-0541718 (CT 4/7/2004), FA97-0541718
...638 (App.Div. 1999); Topham-Rapanotti v. Guilli, 289 N.J.Super. 626, 674 A.2d 650 (Chancery Div. 1996); Ohio, Richardson v. Ballard, 113 Ohio App.3d 552, 555, 681 N.E.2d 507 (1996);19 Oregon, Matter of Marriage of Willis, 314 Or. 566, 840 P.2d 697 In summary, Connecticut case law since 1997......
-
Yerkes v. Yerkes
...downward modification does not benefit the child whose best interests are at stake, but instead benefits only the obligor. E.g., Richardson, 681 N.E.2d at 508; Baggett, 990 P.2d at 245-46. On the other hand, those jurisdictions that reject the "no justification" rule often counter that such......
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF ROTTSCHEIT v. Dumler
...should continue to run.'" Mooney v. Brennan, 848 P.2d 1020, 1023 (Mont. 1993) (internal citation omitted). In Richardson v. Ballard, 681 N.E.2d 507, 508 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996), the Ohio Court of Appeals reconsidered its previous precedents to hold that incarceration for criminal conduct is vo......
-
In re Marriage of Smith
...was a foreseeable result of his criminal conduct and is thus deemed a voluntary act in and of itself.'" (Richardson v. Ballard (1996) 113 Ohio App.3d 552, 681 N.E.2d 507, 508; see also Mooney v. Brennan (1993) 257 Mont. 197, 848 P.2d 1020, 1022-1023; Willis v. Willis (1991) 109 Or.App. 584,......
-
Unacceptable Collateral Damage: the Danger of Probation Conditions Restricting the Right to Have Children
...587 S.E.2d 630 (Ga. 2003) (request for child support reduction by parent imprisoned for drug offense denied); Richardson v. Ballard, 681 N.E.2d 507 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (incarceration after probation revocation not sufficient basis to reduce or terminate child support); Reid v. Reid, 944 S.......
-
Unacceptable Collateral Damage: the Danger of Probation Conditions Restricting the Right to Have Children
...587 S.E.2d 630 (Ga. 2003) (request for child support reduction by parent imprisoned for drug offense denied); Richardson v. Ballard, 681 N.E.2d 507 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (incarceration after probation revocation not sufficient basis to reduce or terminate child support); Reid v. Reid, 944 S.......