Snell v. Howell

• Docket Number: CA2023-08-093
• Decision Date: 22 April 2024
• Citation: 2024 Ohio 1522
• Parties: KELSI MARIE SNELL, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER LEE HOWELL, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2024-Ohio-1522

KELSI MARIE SNELL, Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LEE HOWELL, Appellant.

No. CA2023-08-093

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

April 22, 2024

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. DR20080564

Kelsi Marie Snell, pro se.

James R. Hartke, for appellant.

OPINION

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Christopher Howell, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, overruling his objections and affirming the decision of the magistrate to modify a child support order. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

2

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Howell and appellee, Kelsi Marie Snell, were married on March 22, 2016. There are three minor children born issue of the marriage. In 2020, Snell filed for divorce, and on September 9, 2021, the trial court issued an agreed decree of divorce. On the same day, the court also issued a decree of shared parenting and adopted a shared parenting plan.

{¶ 3} Under the shared parenting plan, Howell is the child support obligor and Snell is the child support obligee. At the time the plan was issued, the court determined Howell's adjusted annual gross income to be $110,073.00 (working in information technology) and Snell's adjusted annual gross income to be $31,817.50 (working in the food service industry). Based on this income, according to the Basic Child Support Schedule and guidelines, Howell would ordinarily pay $1,748.93 per month. However, the trial court found it was in the children's best interest to deviate the amount of Howell's child support downward by the agreement of the parties, in consideration of the parties' agreed "parenting time schedule" and the parties' agreement to share daycare expenses-80% to be paid by Howell and 20% to be paid by Snell. Therefore, based on the deviation factors contained in R.C. 3119.22 and 3119.23, the trial court only ordered Howell to pay Snell a reduced amount of $1,035.37 per month, including $75.39 in cash medical support. All payments were to be paid through the Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA").

{¶ 4} The plan also established that both Howell and Snell are liable for the health care of the children if they are not covered by private health insurance or cash medical support. In the event that private health insurance became available to Howell, the plan ordered him to provide the primary health insurance for the children.

{¶ 5} After the divorce, Howell changed jobs three times and never provided any

3

medical insurance to the children. Instead, Snell obtained Medicaid benefits for the children and updated her information once a year to maintain benefits. One of these annual updates triggered CSEA to conduct an administrative review of the child support order, without any request from Snell or Howell. On January 25, 2023, CSEA issued an administrative adjustment recommendation, establishing Howell's adjusted annual gross income at $153,062.16, and calculating a new monthly support obligation of $1,536.06. On February 1, 2023, Howell waived administrative hearing on the adjustment recommendation and instead filed a motion for judicial mistake of fact in the trial court, taking issue with the recommended increase in his support payment.

{¶ 6} A hearing was held before the trial court magistrate on March 14, 2023. Present for the hearing was Snell, Howell's attorney, and CSEA's attorney. Howell did not appear.

{¶ 7} Snell testified that she currently earns approximately $30,000 per year working full-time as a bartender. Snell also testified that Howell does not have stable housing for the children to stay with him overnight, has never paid for the children's daycare, and has never provided for the children's health insurance. Due to her increased parenting time, as well as health care and daycare costs, Snell testified that the child support Howell has paid does not sufficiently cover the children's expenses.

{¶ 8} On March 27, 2023, the magistrate issued a decision setting aside CSEA's administrative recommendation, but still modifying the child support order. The magistrate found that Howell had offered no reason to deviate the child support calculation downward, and the deviation provided for in the original shared parenting plan was no longer appropriate. Further, the magistrate found that Howell was not exercising all his court-ordered time with his children and failed to pay for daycare as previously agreed. Therefore, the "parenting time schedule" and shared daycare expenses were no

4

longer appropriate considerations to justify reducing his payment, and the deviation ordered in the original shared parenting plan was no longer in the best interest of the children. In an attached worksheet, the magistrate recalculated Howell's child support obligation and ordered he pay $1,988.48 per month, including $80.50 in cash medical support.

{¶ 9} On April 10, 2023, Howell filed written objections to the decision of the magistrate and requested an oral hearing. On July 20, 2023, a hearing was held before the trial court judge, and on July 25, 2023, the trial court overruled Howell's objections and affirmed the magistrate's decision in all respects. On August 17, 2023, Howell appealed to this court.^[1]

II. Legal Analysis

{¶ 10} On appeal, Howell presents five assignments of error for our review. For the following reasons, this court disagrees with Howell and affirms the decision of the trial court.

{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 1:

IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND IN VIOLATION OF STATUTE FOR A COURT TO IMPOSE AN UNJUSTIFIED MODIFICATION TO A SHARED PARENTING PLAN INITIATED WITHOUT CAUSE BY CSEA FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT REVIEW RECOMMENDATION FOURTEEN TO SIXTEEN MONTHS AFTER AN ORDER ON AN AGREED SHARED PARENTING PLAN IN FORCE

{¶ 12} In his first assignment of error, Howell argues that pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-05.1, CSEA lacked the authority to initiate an administrative review of the child support order on its own, without any request from the parties and less

5

than 36 months after the most recent child support order was put into place. Here, the most recent child support order went into effect on September 9, 2021, and CSEA issued the findings of its administrative review on January 25, 2023, 16 months later.

{¶ 13} Nevertheless, Howell waived his right to an administrative hearing on CSEA's administrative adjustment recommendation and did not challenge CSEA's authority to conduct a review sooner than 36 months. Instead, Howell filed a motion for a judicial mistake of fact in the trial court and did not present any argument to the magistrate regarding the timing of CSEA's review. When Howell filed his written objections to the magistrate's decision, he still did not present any argument on the timing of CSEA's review, only...