[Cite as A.C. v. V.G., 2011-Ohio-6285.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96759
A.C.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
V.G., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Juvenile Division
Case No. SU 97770059
BEFORE: Boyle, P.J., Celebrezze, J., and Keough, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 8, 2011
FOR APPELLANT
A.C., pro se
199 Grand Boulevard
Bedford, Ohio 44146
FOR APPELLEE
V.G., pro se
6 Sheraton Road
Randallstown, Maryland 21133
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF OHIO
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Joseph C. Young
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency
1910 Carnegie Avenue, 2nd Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant-obligee, A.C. (mother), appeals from the judgment of
the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, that adopted
the recommendation of the appellee-Cuyahoga County Child Support
Enforcement Agency (“the agency”), finding that (1) child support for V.G. Jr.
shall terminate because the child had turned 18 on September 29, 2009; and
(2) an overpayment exists in the amount of $3,262.83 as of September 28,
2010. A.C. argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to
consider her objections to the agency’s findings and failed to recognize that
her son was still entitled to child support. Finding no merit to the appeal,
we affirm.
Procedural History and Facts
{¶ 2} On September 3, 2010, the agency notified both obligee-A.C. and
the obligor-V.G. (father) that its records revealed that the support order for
V.G. Jr. shall terminate on his eighteenth birthday unless proper
documentation was submitted evidencing that he is “continuously attending,
on a full-time basis, any recognized and accredited high school.” No
documentation was provided, and the agency subsequently recommended that
child support should be terminated. Upon A.C.’s request, the agency
conducted an administrative termination hearing on November 23, 2010 to
determine whether the findings and recommendations to terminate the court
child support order issued by the agency on October 14, 2010 contained a
mistake. A.C., however, failed to appear for the hearing.
{¶ 3} On December 21, 2010, the agency issued an “Administrative
Termination Hearing Decision,” finding that, despite requesting a hearing to
dispute the agency’s earlier recommendation to terminate child support, A.C.
failed to appear for the hearing. The administrative hearing officer further
found that the agency’s recommendation to terminate court-ordered child
support was correct. As for A.C.’s right to another hearing on the matter, the
decision contained the following advisement:
{¶ 4} “The Obligee or Obligor may object to the Administrative
Termination Hearing Decision within 30 days after the issuance of the
Administrative Termination Hearing Decision by filing a motion requesting a
determination as to whether the child support order and medical support
provisions should be terminated or whether any other appropriate
determination regarding the Court Order should be made. The motion
should be filed in the court that issued the Order or other court with
jurisdiction under [R.C.] 2102.022 or 2301.03 * * * of the county in which the
Court that issued the order is located.
{¶ 5} “If neither the Obligee nor Obligor files a motion to object to the
Administrative Termination Hearing Decision within the 30 day period, the
Administrative Termination Hearing Decision is final and will be filed with
the Court.”
{¶ 6} Thirty-one days later, on January 21, 2011, A.C. filed her
objection to the “Administrative Termination Hearing Decision,” arguing that
she had provided an agency representative with documentation that her son
was attending an accredited high school and therefore still entitled to child
support. A.C. disputed that there was any overpayment and requested
another hearing.
{¶ 7} On April 4, 2011, the juvenile court adopted the “Administrative
Termination Hearing Decision,” thereby finding that there was an
overpayment and that V.G. was no longer required to pay child support.
{¶ 8} A.C. appeals, raising two assignments of error:
{¶ 9} “I. The court of common pleas juvenile division decision to adopt
the CSEA recommendations and findings without acknowledgment of motion
of objection filed.
{¶ 10} “II. The court of common pleas juvenile division decision to not
recognize the state law therefore constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
{¶ 11} Because these are related, we will address A.C.’s two assignments
of error together.
Untimely Objections
{¶ 12} In her two assignments of error, A.C. argues that the trial court
abused its discretion in failing to consider her objections and by adopting the
agency’s recommendation without first having a hearing. She contends that
there was no overpayment of child support because her son was still
attending an accredited high school and had not yet graduated. We find her
arguments, however, unpersuasive.
{¶ 13} Under R.C. 3119.92, A.C. would have been entitled to a hearing if
she had filed her objections within 30 days from the date of the agency’s
termination decision. The statute provides:
{¶ 14} “If the obligor, the obligee, or both file a motion as described in
section 3119.91 of the Revised Code within the thirty-day period, the court
shall set the case for a hearing for a determination as to whether the support
order should be terminated or whether the court should take any other
appropriate action. On the filing of the motion, the court shall issue an order
directing that the impoundment order issued by the child support
enforcement agency regarding support amounts received for the child remain
in effect while the motion is pending. If neither the obligor nor the obligee
files a motion as described in section 3119.91 of the Revised Code within the
thirty-day period, the administrative hearing decision is final and will be filed
with the court or in the administrative case file.”
{¶ 15} A.C.’s objections were not filed within the thirty-day period to
trigger the hearing requirement under R.C. 3119.92. We therefore cannot
say that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing.
{¶ 16} Similarly, while we recognize that R.C. 3119.86(A)(1)(c) expressly
states that the duty of child support shall continue beyond the child’s
eighteenth birthday when the “child continuously attends a recognized and
accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child’s eighteenth
birthday,” A.C. failed to establish that her child met this criteria. Although
A.C. asserted this argument in her objections filed on January 21, 2011, the
argument was untimely. Indeed, the order of December 21, 2010, expressly
stated that it would become final unless objections were filed within 30 days.
We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider
A.C.’s argument when A.C. failed to comply with the time requirements for
asserting such an argument.
{¶ 17} The record reveals that A.C. had multiple opportunities to submit
the required documentation to authorize the continuation of child support
payments. Aside from not submitting the documentation when requested in
September 2010, she failed to appear for the hearing in December and then
later failed to timely object to the administrative decision issued. Based on
the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion
in adopting the agency’s administrative recommendations and findings.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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.
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR