[Cite as Baker v. Deatrick, 2024-Ohio-3058.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY
BRENNA M. BAKER CASE NO. 11-23-08 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREW G. DEATRICK, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Appeal from Paulding County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 20234005
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 12, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Shane M. Lee for Appellant
Danny A. Hill, II for Appellee Case No. 11-23-08
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Brenna M. Baker (“mother”), appeals the November
21, 2023 judgment of the Paulding County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, ordering mother and defendant-appellee, Andrew G. Deatrick (“father”),
to alternate claiming the child on their respective income tax returns for purposes of
the child tax credit. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On January 20, 2023, the trial court received and registered an
administrative order from the Paulding County Child Support Enforcement Agency
directing father to pay child support and both parties to obtain health insurance for
the child.
{¶3} On October 24, 2023, the parties entered into a shared-parenting plan
by consent entry. Under the shared-parenting plan, the parties agreed that mother
would be the residential parent and legal custodian of the child and father’s
parenting time would be every other weekend and holidays. The parties, however,
did not agree on which parent would claim the child for income tax purposes.
{¶4} A hearing took place on November 7, 2023. At the hearing, the parties
stipulated that mother would claim the child every year for the earned income credit
because the child resides with mother more than half of the time. The parties also
stipulated that mother would claim the standard deduction for head of household
-2- Case No. 11-23-08
every year. The sole issue for the trial court to decide was which parent would claim
the child for purposes of the child tax credit.
{¶5} Following the hearing, the trial court concluded that it is in the best
interest of the child to allocate the benefit of the child tax credit between mother and
father. Specifically, the trial court determined that mother will claim the child every
odd year, beginning in 2023, and father will claim the child every even year as long
as father is substantially current in his child support payments for such year.
{¶6} Mother filed her notice of appeal on December 21, 2023. She raises
two assignments of error for our review. For ease of discussion, we will address her
assignments of error together.
First Assignment of Error
The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Decided That Mother And Father Should Alternate Claiming The Minor Child For The Child Tax Credit.
Second Assignment of Error
The Trial Court’s Ruling Was Against The Manifest Weight Of The Evidence When It Decided That Mother And Father Should Alternate Claiming The Minor Child For The Child Tax Credit.
{¶7} In her assignments of error, mother challenges the trial court’s decision
to allocate the benefit of the child tax credit between mother and father.
Specifically, in her first assignment of error, mother argues that “the trial court’s
decision was unreasonable and arbitrary because [f]ather failed to provide the court
with sufficient evidence that alternating the child tax credit was in the best interest
-3- Case No. 11-23-08
of the child.” (Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1). In her second assignment of error,
mother argues that the trial court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the
evidence because it is not supported by competent, credible evidence.
Consequently, mother requests that the trial court’s decision be reversed and that
she be awarded the child tax credit every year.
Standard of Review
{¶8} “[T]he allocation of tax exemptions is a matter resting within the sound
discretion of the trial court and, therefore, will not be overruled absent an abuse of
discretion.” Boose v. Lodge, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-03-04, 2003-Ohio-4257, ¶ 4.
“This discretion is both guided and limited by R.C. 3119.82.” Miller v. Dendinger,
3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-20-13, 2021-Ohio-546, ¶ 54. “A court abuses its discretion
when its decision results from an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable.” State ex rel. Harris v. Bruns, 173 Ohio St.3d 27, 2023-Ohio-2344,
¶ 21, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). Furthermore,
a trial court’s decision concerning parental rights and responsibilities will not be
reversed on appeal as being against the manifest weight of the evidence as long as
there is competent, credible evidence to support the decision. Duer v. Moonshower,
3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-03-15, 2004-Ohio-4025, ¶ 15.
Analysis
{¶9} R.C. 3119.82 provides that, when a trial court issues, modifies, or
otherwise reconsiders a child support order, the court must decide which parent will
-4- Case No. 11-23-08
claim the child as a dependent for federal income tax purposes. If the parties agree
on which parent should claim the child as a dependent, then the court must designate
that parent as the parent who may claim the child. If, however, the parties do not
agree on which parent should claim the child, the court may award the tax exemption
to the nonresidential parent “only if the court determines that this furthers the best
interest of the [child]” and the child support payments are substantially current.
R.C. 3119.82.
{¶10} In determining the best interest of the child, R.C. 3119.82 mandates
that the court “shall” consider a number of factors including (1) any net tax savings,
(2) the relative financial circumstances and needs of the parents and child, (3) the
amount of time the child spends with each parent, (4) the eligibility of either or both
parents for the federal earned income tax credit or other state or federal tax credit,
and (5) any other relevant factor concerning the best interest of the child. See Miller,
2021-Ohio-546, at ¶ 56 (noting that R.C. 3119.82 establishes a presumption in favor
of awarding the tax exemption to the residential parent, but the tax exemption may
be awarded to the nonresidential parent where it furthers the best interest of the
child).
{¶11} In addition, if the parties disagree as to which parent should claim the
child as a dependent, “‘the burden is on the nonresidential parent to produce
competent and credible evidence to show that allocating the dependency exemption
to the nonresidential parent would be in the best interests of the child.’” Burns v.
-5- Case No. 11-23-08
Burns, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-05-050, 2012-Ohio-2850, ¶ 27, quoting
Meassick v. Meassick, 171 Ohio App.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-6245, ¶ 15 (7th Dist.).
{¶12} Here, mother argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering
the parties to alternate claiming the child for purposes of the child tax credit because
it does not further the best interest of the child since she “provides for the care and
support of the parties’ child the entire year” and “any tax benefit should remain in
the home where the child resides.” (Appellant’s Brief at 10). Mother further argues
that, “besides paying child support and having weekend parenting time with his two
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Baker v. Deatrick, 2024-Ohio-3058.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY
BRENNA M. BAKER CASE NO. 11-23-08 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREW G. DEATRICK, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Appeal from Paulding County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 20234005
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 12, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Shane M. Lee for Appellant
Danny A. Hill, II for Appellee Case No. 11-23-08
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Brenna M. Baker (“mother”), appeals the November
21, 2023 judgment of the Paulding County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, ordering mother and defendant-appellee, Andrew G. Deatrick (“father”),
to alternate claiming the child on their respective income tax returns for purposes of
the child tax credit. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On January 20, 2023, the trial court received and registered an
administrative order from the Paulding County Child Support Enforcement Agency
directing father to pay child support and both parties to obtain health insurance for
the child.
{¶3} On October 24, 2023, the parties entered into a shared-parenting plan
by consent entry. Under the shared-parenting plan, the parties agreed that mother
would be the residential parent and legal custodian of the child and father’s
parenting time would be every other weekend and holidays. The parties, however,
did not agree on which parent would claim the child for income tax purposes.
{¶4} A hearing took place on November 7, 2023. At the hearing, the parties
stipulated that mother would claim the child every year for the earned income credit
because the child resides with mother more than half of the time. The parties also
stipulated that mother would claim the standard deduction for head of household
-2- Case No. 11-23-08
every year. The sole issue for the trial court to decide was which parent would claim
the child for purposes of the child tax credit.
{¶5} Following the hearing, the trial court concluded that it is in the best
interest of the child to allocate the benefit of the child tax credit between mother and
father. Specifically, the trial court determined that mother will claim the child every
odd year, beginning in 2023, and father will claim the child every even year as long
as father is substantially current in his child support payments for such year.
{¶6} Mother filed her notice of appeal on December 21, 2023. She raises
two assignments of error for our review. For ease of discussion, we will address her
assignments of error together.
First Assignment of Error
The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Decided That Mother And Father Should Alternate Claiming The Minor Child For The Child Tax Credit.
Second Assignment of Error
The Trial Court’s Ruling Was Against The Manifest Weight Of The Evidence When It Decided That Mother And Father Should Alternate Claiming The Minor Child For The Child Tax Credit.
{¶7} In her assignments of error, mother challenges the trial court’s decision
to allocate the benefit of the child tax credit between mother and father.
Specifically, in her first assignment of error, mother argues that “the trial court’s
decision was unreasonable and arbitrary because [f]ather failed to provide the court
with sufficient evidence that alternating the child tax credit was in the best interest
-3- Case No. 11-23-08
of the child.” (Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1). In her second assignment of error,
mother argues that the trial court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the
evidence because it is not supported by competent, credible evidence.
Consequently, mother requests that the trial court’s decision be reversed and that
she be awarded the child tax credit every year.
Standard of Review
{¶8} “[T]he allocation of tax exemptions is a matter resting within the sound
discretion of the trial court and, therefore, will not be overruled absent an abuse of
discretion.” Boose v. Lodge, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-03-04, 2003-Ohio-4257, ¶ 4.
“This discretion is both guided and limited by R.C. 3119.82.” Miller v. Dendinger,
3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-20-13, 2021-Ohio-546, ¶ 54. “A court abuses its discretion
when its decision results from an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable.” State ex rel. Harris v. Bruns, 173 Ohio St.3d 27, 2023-Ohio-2344,
¶ 21, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). Furthermore,
a trial court’s decision concerning parental rights and responsibilities will not be
reversed on appeal as being against the manifest weight of the evidence as long as
there is competent, credible evidence to support the decision. Duer v. Moonshower,
3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-03-15, 2004-Ohio-4025, ¶ 15.
Analysis
{¶9} R.C. 3119.82 provides that, when a trial court issues, modifies, or
otherwise reconsiders a child support order, the court must decide which parent will
-4- Case No. 11-23-08
claim the child as a dependent for federal income tax purposes. If the parties agree
on which parent should claim the child as a dependent, then the court must designate
that parent as the parent who may claim the child. If, however, the parties do not
agree on which parent should claim the child, the court may award the tax exemption
to the nonresidential parent “only if the court determines that this furthers the best
interest of the [child]” and the child support payments are substantially current.
R.C. 3119.82.
{¶10} In determining the best interest of the child, R.C. 3119.82 mandates
that the court “shall” consider a number of factors including (1) any net tax savings,
(2) the relative financial circumstances and needs of the parents and child, (3) the
amount of time the child spends with each parent, (4) the eligibility of either or both
parents for the federal earned income tax credit or other state or federal tax credit,
and (5) any other relevant factor concerning the best interest of the child. See Miller,
2021-Ohio-546, at ¶ 56 (noting that R.C. 3119.82 establishes a presumption in favor
of awarding the tax exemption to the residential parent, but the tax exemption may
be awarded to the nonresidential parent where it furthers the best interest of the
child).
{¶11} In addition, if the parties disagree as to which parent should claim the
child as a dependent, “‘the burden is on the nonresidential parent to produce
competent and credible evidence to show that allocating the dependency exemption
to the nonresidential parent would be in the best interests of the child.’” Burns v.
-5- Case No. 11-23-08
Burns, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-05-050, 2012-Ohio-2850, ¶ 27, quoting
Meassick v. Meassick, 171 Ohio App.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-6245, ¶ 15 (7th Dist.).
{¶12} Here, mother argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering
the parties to alternate claiming the child for purposes of the child tax credit because
it does not further the best interest of the child since she “provides for the care and
support of the parties’ child the entire year” and “any tax benefit should remain in
the home where the child resides.” (Appellant’s Brief at 10). Mother further argues
that, “besides paying child support and having weekend parenting time with his two
other children, there is no competent, credible evidence in the record that would
carry [f]ather’s burden to establish that it is in the child’s best interest that [f]ather
be granted the tax credit.” (Id. at 9).
{¶13} In this case, since the parties did not agree on which parent should
claim the child for purposes of the child tax credit, an evidentiary hearing took place
wherein the parties presented evidence in the form of testimony and exhibits.
Thereafter, the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3119.82 and
determined that it would be in the best interest of the child for mother and father to
alternate claiming the child for purposes of the child tax credit. First, the trial court
considered the net tax savings and found that the savings would be the same for both
parents because the child tax credit is currently set at $2,000.
{¶14} Second, the trial court considered the relative financial circumstances
and needs of the parents and the child. Father testified at the hearing to his current
-6- Case No. 11-23-08
income and a copy of his 2022 federal income tax return was admitted into evidence.
Father further testified to his child support obligations and the trial court took
judicial notice of the prior support calculations in the record. The trial court noted
that father pays child support for two other children, and that father provides health
insurance for the child through his employer at no additional cost to the parties.
{¶15} Third, the trial court considered the amount of time the child spends
with each parent. The trial court noted that the parties previously agreed to a
division of parenting time wherein the child is predominantly with mother. Father
testified to the amount of time he spends with the child. In particular, Father
testified that, if he could claim the child for the child tax credit, he would “have
more money available to spend” and “[d]o more things with the child” when the
child visits his household. (Nov. 7, 2023 Tr. at 12). See Foster v. Foster, 6th Dist.
Sandusky No. S-03-037, 2004-Ohio-3905, ¶ 24 (noting that the evidence supported
awarding the tax exemption to the nonresidential parent as being in the best interest
of the child because the nonresidential parent would have more money to do
activities with the child during visits).
{¶16} Finally, the trial court considered the eligibility of either or both
parents for the federal earned income tax credit or other state or federal tax credit.
The trial court noted that the parties agreed that mother would claim the child every
year for the earned income credit. Moreover, the trial court noted that mother would
claim the standard deduction for head of household every year.
-7- Case No. 11-23-08
{¶17} After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by ordering the parties to alternate claiming the child on their
respective income tax returns for purposes of the child tax credit. The trial court
considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3119.82 and determined that it is in the best
interest of the child to allocate the benefit of the child tax credit between mother and
father, with mother receiving the child tax credit every odd year and father every
even year so long as his child support payments are current. See Miller, 2021-Ohio-
546, at ¶ 57. As noted above, the trial court’s decision is supported by competent
and credible evidence. See Duer, 2004-Ohio-4025, at ¶ 15.
{¶18} Mother’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶19} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
/hls
-8-