In re M.P.

2025 Ohio 5223

Opinion

[Cite as In re M.P., 2025-Ohio-5223.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE M.P. :

A Minor Child : No. 114661

[Appeal by D.P., Father] :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 20, 2025

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. FA23113083

Appearances:

Amanda M. Bizub, for appellant.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

Appellant D.P., who is the father of M.P (“the child”), appeals from

the juvenile court’s decision overruling his objections to the magistrate’s decision

and the court’s order of child-support establishment. For the reasons that follow,

we reverse the juvenile court’s decision and remand the matter for a hearing on the

issue of child support.

This action commenced in November 2023 when D.P. filed an

application to determine custody and/or shared parenting. That application was voluntarily dismissed, and a subsequent application to determine shared parenting

was later withdrawn. The case information sheet reflects that D.P. and the child’s

mother M.S. are not married and D.P.’s paternity for the child was established.

The juvenile court’s judgment entry reflects D.P. was receiving parenting time

without issue. During the pendency of the action, D.P. raised challenges pertaining

to child-support establishment.

Relative to this appeal, in February 2024, D.P. filed an objection to

an administrative order for child support and medical support that ordered him to

pay $568.68 per month plus a 2 percent processing fee.1 The child-support

computation worksheet showed no annual income for D.P. and listed his potential

income as $37,960. D.P. stated in an affidavit attached to his objection that he had

provided a pay stub showing his income of “$545 per week,” which fluctuates; that

he makes about $600 per week or $2,400 per month; and that he could not afford

the amount of child support ordered.

A hearing was held before the juvenile-court magistrate on

November 13, 2024. Neither D.P. nor M.S. was represented by counsel. A

magistrate’s decision was issued on November 22, 2024. In the decision, the

magistrate found in part as follows:

The court finds that the father failed to present testimony and evidence to show that the income attributed to him in the Administrative Child Support Computation Worksheet was incorrect. The court finds that testimony from the father established that he voluntarily terminated his employment with [MetroHealth] and that he was terminated from

1 This amount included $13.25 for cash medical support. employment with Amazon. He failed to provide any evidence regarding his current income and his testimony established that [he] is voluntarily underemployed based upon his work history.

Nevertheless, the magistrate found good cause for D.P.’s objection to

the administrative order because a parenting-time order that had been issued by the

domestic relations court was not included in the administrative-support order. The

magistrate completed a guideline worksheet that was attached to the magistrate’s

decision. In calculating the child-support obligation for D.P., the magistrate used

the same potential income that was used for the administrative-support order and

accounted for the parenting-time order. The magistrate also granted a downward

deviation of $25.04 to account for D.P.’s extended parenting time. The magistrate

ordered, subject to the juvenile court’s approval, that D.P. pay child support “in the

sum of $493.22 per month” plus a 2 percent processing fee for a total of $503.08

per month.2

On November 25, 2024, D.P. filed objections to the magistrate’s

decision. He attached a copy of an email he had sent the administrative agency in

December 2023 with a pay stub from Lyft attached, which listed his net earnings as

$575.80 for 16 hours and 45 minutes of “booked time.” D.P. stated in his objections

that he left MetroHealth, that he had provided proof of the amount he earns per

week at Lyft, that he has no other income, and that he cannot afford to pay the

2 The amount included $17.39 per month for cash medical support. amount of child support ordered. No transcript of the hearing before the court

magistrate was filed with the juvenile court.

On December 6, 2024, the juvenile court issued a journal entry in

which the court overruled D.P.’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and

affirmed, approved, and adopted that decision. On December 9, 2024, the juvenile

court issued a judgment entry of support establishment.

On appeal, D.P. raises two assignments of error. Under his first

assignment of error, D.P. claims the juvenile court failed to adhere to statutory

requirements and erred when the court imputed income to him. Under his second

assignment of error, D.P. claims the juvenile court erred in finding he was

voluntarily underemployed and by imputing income to him based on an artificially

elevated wage. No appellee’s brief has been filed.

Initially, although D.P. has supplemented the record on appeal with

the transcript, we are precluded from reviewing it because he failed to file a hearing

transcript with the juvenile court. See In re S.M., 2025-Ohio-5144 (8th Dist.).

Pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii), “[a]n objection to a factual finding . . . shall be

supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to

that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available.”

Therefore, we will not consider the transcript and shall limit our review of the

assignments of error.

In this case, D.P. filed an objection to an administrative order for child

support. The magistrate issued a decision and attached a guideline worksheet recalculating the amount of child-support pursuant to R.C. 3119.01 – 3119.24. The

case was before the juvenile court upon D.P.’s objections to the magistrate’s decision

concerning the amount of child support ordered.

Pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D), when ruling on objections to a magistrate’s

decision, the juvenile court is required to undertake an independent review to

ascertain that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and

appropriately applied the law. Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d). Even when no objections are

filed, a juvenile court may adopt the magistrate’s decision “unless it determines that

there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s

decision.” Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(c). Also, before taking action on a magistrate’s decision,

a juvenile court is permitted to hear additional evidence. See Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(b)

and (d).

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(G), “[a]ny juvenile court that makes or

modifies an order for child support shall comply with Chapters 3119., 3121., 3123.,

and 3125. of the Revised Code.” For purposes of the calculation of child support,

“the court or agency shall calculate the amount of the parents’ child support and

cash medical support in accordance with the basic child support schedule, the

applicable worksheet, and the other provisions of [R.C.] Chapter 3119.” R.C.

3119.02. There is a rebuttable presumption that the child-support obligation

calculated pursuant to the basic child-support schedule and applicable worksheet is

the correct amount of child support due. R.C. 3119.03. When determining the amount of child support owed, the court or

agency must determine the annual income of each parent. Ayers v. Ayers, 2024-

Ohio-1833, ¶ 13, citing R.C. 3119.021(A). “R.C. 3119.05(A) places the burden on

parents to verify their income with documentation, not on the court to verify

income.” Desensi v. Eppley, 2025-Ohio-2471, ¶ 1 (5th Dist.).

“Income” is defined under R.C. 3119.01(C)(10) to mean either of the

following:

(a) For a parent who is employed to full capacity, the gross income of the parent;

(b) For a parent who is unemployed or underemployed, the sum of the gross income of the parent and any potential income of the parent.

Generally, a parent who claims the other parent is voluntarily

underemployed has the burden of proof. Page v. Page, 2022-Ohio-411, ¶ 41 (2d

Dist.). “Nonetheless, a parent seeking to avoid imputation of income must show an

objectively reasonable basis for terminating or otherwise diminishing employment.”

(Cleaned up.) Id.

For “potential income,” which is currently defined under R.C.

3119.01(C)(18), to be imputed to a parent, the trial court is required to expressly

determine that the parent is “voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily

underemployed,” and then determine what the parent would have earned if fully

employed, using the criteria enumerated under R.C. 3119.01(C)(18)(a)(i)-(xi),

formerly R.C. 3119.01(C)(17)(a)(i)-(xi). Ayers at ¶ 13, 27. These matters are to be

determined from the facts and circumstances of the case, and generally the trial court’s determinations should not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of

discretion. Rock v. Cabral, 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 112 (1993).

“‘Despite the discretion a trial court has in child support matters, the

court must literally and technically follow the statutory requirements in all material

respects.’” Mayer v. Mayer, 2022-Ohio-533, ¶ 54 (10th Dist.), quoting Wolf-

Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2011-Ohio-6819, ¶ 88 (10th Dist.), citing Marker v. Grimm,

65 Ohio St.3d 139 (1992), paragraph two of the syllabus. Furthermore, “[a]n

appellate court must be able to ascertain from the trial court’s journal entry the

amount of potential income imputed, and the trial court’s reasons for imputing

income to a child support obligor.” Rock at 113.

In this matter, D.P. argues that the juvenile court erred by imputing

income to him as a voluntarily underemployed parent. He argues that there was no

evidence that he intentionally acted to reduce his earnings and that the absence of

an examination of the statutory factors renders the juvenile court’s decision

improper. He further argues that the juvenile court imputed income to him based

on temporary and elevated COVID-related hazard pay he previously earned at

MetroHealth.

Though we are unable to review the transcript, the juvenile court’s

decision reflects that it found D.P.’s testimony established that he is voluntarily

underemployed based upon his work history. More specifically, the juvenile court

indicated D.P.’s testimony established that he voluntarily terminated his

employment with MetroHealth, that he was terminated from employment with Amazon, and that he failed to provide any evidence regarding his current income.

However, there is no indication in the juvenile court’s decision that the court

determined what the parent would have earned if fully employed, using the criteria

enumerated under R.C. 3119.01(C)(18)(a)(i)-(xi).

We recognize that the record before the juvenile court was limited, as

is the record before us. Nonetheless, we are compelled to find the juvenile court

committed an error of law by failing to adhere to the statutory requirements for

imputing potential income to D.P.

Though D.P. speculates that the juvenile court and/or administrative

agency found he was underemployed and imputed income to him based on his

elevated earnings at MetroHealth, which he states included COVID-related hazard

pay, the juvenile court also referenced his employment at Amazon. Further, we note

that the copy of the single pay stub from Lyft, which he had emailed to the

administrative agency and submitted with his objections to the magistrate’s

decision, reflects fewer than 20 hours of work. The juvenile court found D.P. failed

to present testimony and evidence to show that the income attributed to him in the

administrative child-support computation worksheet was incorrect, and it appears

the juvenile court magistrate merely adopted the determination of potential income

made by the administrative agency in its calculation of child support. However, the

juvenile court was required to comply with the requirements of R.C. Ch. 3119 for the

calculation of child support, and the particular basis for the juvenile court’s findings

and determinations are unclear from the record. We remind juvenile courts that an appellate court must be able to

ascertain the reasons of the juvenile court for the action taken in imputing income

to a parent. See Rock, 67 Ohio St.3d at 113. As this court has previously explained:

[T]here must be sufficient information in the juvenile court’s journal entry imposing child support (or otherwise in the record) to allow a reviewing court to discern why the juvenile court did what it did and why it determined its decision was in the best interest of the child. Without such information, we are unable to properly assess whether the juvenile court’s decision was the product of a sound reasoning process or was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.

In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.).

In this particular case, the juvenile court did not adhere to the

statutory requirements under R.C. Ch. 3119, and we are unable to ascertain whether

the juvenile court’s decision was the product of a sound reasoning process. Given

the limited record, we believe the matter should be remanded for a hearing before

the juvenile court. See In re K.R.B. at ¶ 28.

For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the decision of the juvenile

court and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of child support.

The juvenile court must comply with the applicable statutory requirements.

Judgment reversed; case remanded with instructions.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR