[Cite as Snell v. Howell, 2024-Ohio-1522.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
KELSI MARIE SNELL, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-08-093
: OPINION
- vs - 4/22/2024
:
CHRISTOPHER LEE HOWELL, :
Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. DR20080564
Kelsi Marie Snell, pro se.
James R. Hartke, for appellant.
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.
Butler CA2023-08-093
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
-2-
Butler CA2023-08-093
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
-3-
Butler CA2023-08-093
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
1. Howell also filed a motion for a new trial on August 7, 2023, but appealed before the trial court issued
any decision. That motion remains unresolved.
-4-
Butler CA2023-08-093
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 raising the issue for the first time orally at the hearing before the
trial court judge on July 20, 2023.
{¶ 14} By failing to timely object to the timing of CSEA's review, Howell has waived
any alleged error in that regard. See Perez v. Simkins, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA
146, 2014-Ohio-4006, ¶ 11 (holding that res judicata prevented father from contesting
CSEA's ability to conduct an administrative review sooner than 36 months after the most
recent child support order went into effect).
{¶ 15} Howell's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 16} Assignment of Error No. 2:
THE COURT ABUSES ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO
CORRECT A FACTUAL MISTAKE CONCERNING AN
OBLIGOR'S ANNUAL GROSS INCOME PROVEN BY
UNEQUIVOCAL EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED BY
OBLIGOR'S EARNING STATEMENT FOR THE ENTIRE
CALENDAR YEAR.
{¶ 17} In his second assignment of error, Howell argues the court improperly
calculated his annual gross income. We disagree.
{¶ 18} In support of his argument, Howell cites an "ADP Earnings Statement" that
-5-
Butler CA2023-08-093
his total income in 2022 was only $114,113.92, rather than the $153,062.16 calculated
by the magistrate as his annual gross income. Howell also cites his own testimony at the
July 20, 2023 hearing, explaining that he was not always employed 12 months per year,
and changed employers from TQL, to Palo Alto Network Inc., to CDW, with contracts of
various lengths. However, Howell admitted that his monthly salary, if annualized, would
equate to $152,000 per year.
{¶ 19} Trial courts have considerable discretion in formulating child support
awards and a trial court's decision regarding child support will not be reversed absent an
abuse of discretion. Lafever v. Lafever, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-02-017, 2015-
Ohio-823, ¶ 12. "An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment, it implies
that the attitude of the court is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." In re F.S.,
12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2020-08-011 and CA2020-08-012, 2021-Ohio-345, ¶ 42, citing
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 5 Ohio B. 481 (1983). The vast majority
of cases in which an abuse of discretion is asserted involve claims that the decision is
unreasonable. In re L.W., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2020-12-019, 2021-Ohio-2461, ¶ 21.
"A decision is unreasonable where it is not supported by a sound reasoning process." In
re L.M., 12th Dist. Preble Nos. CA2020-12-017 and CA2020-12-018, 2021-Ohio-1630, ¶
22.
{¶ 20} Here, the trial court magistrate calculated Howell's income based on
information from Palo Alto Network Inc. that reported his rate of pay as $6,377.59 paid
semi-monthly. This rate was annualized to $153,062.16. Although Howell had changed
employers several times and was not employed for certain months in the years between
the divorce and this most recent child support adjustment, he earned this rate of pay for
nine consecutive months when working for Palo Alto. Annualizing this rate to calculate
Howell's yearly income was reasonable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
-6-
Butler CA2023-08-093
{¶ 21} Howell's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} Assignment of Error No. 3:
IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND IN VIOLATION OF
STATUTE FOR A COURT TO MODIFY A SHARED
PARENTING PLAN WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES.
{¶ 23} In his third assignment of error, Howell argues the trial court failed to
determine that there was a substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying the
child support order. Howell asserts that the child support calculation had not changed by
at least ten percent to satisfy R.C. 3119.79(A) and establish a substantial change in
circumstances. We disagree.
{¶ 24} "The modification of a child support order is governed by the requirements
of R.C. 3119.79." Banfield v. Banfield, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2010-09-066 and
CA2010-09-068, 2011-Ohio-3638, ¶ 18. When considering a motion to modify a child
support order, the trial court must recalculate the amount of support required to be paid
pursuant to the statutory child support guideline schedule and the applicable worksheet
using the parties' updated financial information. R.C. 3119.79(A). A deviation of ten
percent in the amount to be paid between the original support order and the recalculated
amount under the current circumstances is deemed to be a "'change of circumstance
substantial enough to require a modification of the child support amount.'" Le v. Bird,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-04-090, 2006-Ohio-204 at ¶ 6, quoting R.C. 3119.79(A).
{¶ 25} R.C. 3119.79(A) must also be read in conjunction with R.C. 3119.79(C),
which provides:
If the court determines that the amount of child support
required to be paid under the child support order should be
changed due to a substantial change of circumstances that
was not contemplated at the time of the issuance of the
original child support order or the last modification of the child
support order, the court shall modify the amount of child
-7-
Butler CA2023-08-093
support required to be paid under the child support order to
comply with the schedule and the applicable worksheet
through the line establishing the actual annual obligation,
unless the court determines that the amount calculated
pursuant to the basic child support schedule and pursuant to
the applicable worksheet would be unjust or inappropriate and
would not be in the best interest of the child and enters in the
journal the figure, determination, and findings specified in
section 3119.22 of the Revised Code.
(Emphasis added). "R.C. 3119.79(C) [therefore] provides an independent basis for
permitting modification of an existing child support order without consideration of the ten
percent change discussed in subdivision (A) of the statute." Banfield, 2011-Ohio-3638 at
¶ 20; See also Flege v. Flege, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-05-111, 2004-Ohio-1929, ¶
33.
{¶ 26} "Where * * * the parties [have] voluntarily agree[d] to the amount of the
obligor's child support obligation, a trial court granting a motion for modification must find
both (1) a change of circumstances, and (2) that such a change of circumstances 'was
not contemplated at the time of the issuance of the child support order.'" Bird, 2006-Ohio-
204 at ¶ 9, quoting Bonner v. Bonner, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-05-206, 2005-Ohio-6173, ¶
11.
{¶ 27} Here, in the original shared parenting plan, the parties had agreed to deviate
Howell's payments downward "due to the parties' parenting time schedule" and in
consideration of the parties' agreement to share daycare expenses. However, the
magistrate found that based on Snell's testimony, Howell had not been exercising all his
court-ordered time with his children and never paid his portion of the daycare expenses.
Therefore, the magistrate found that the deviation was no longer in the best interest of
the children and should be terminated. This change in parenting time and Howell's failure
to pay for daycare was a change of circumstances not contemplated when the original
child support order was issued. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
-8-
Butler CA2023-08-093
it terminated the deviation from the calculated amount of child support Howell was
ordered to pay.
{¶ 28} Howell's third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 29} Assignment of Error No. 4:
IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND IN VIOLATION OF
STATUTE TO FAIL TO INCLUDE EXTRAORDINARY
PARENTING TIME DOWNWARD DEVIATION PRESUMED
TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN IN
THE CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION
WITHOUT EXPRESS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION
{¶ 30} In his fourth assignment of error, Howell argues the trial court abused its
discretion by terminating the agreed deviation in the original shared parenting plan without
justification. In support of his argument, Howell claims that he provided 160 nights
annually of overnight parenting time and cites R.C. 3119.051 for the proposition that a ten
percent reduction in individual support obligations is required where there are more than
90 overnights per year. We disagree.
{¶ 31} Here, the magistrate recognized that Howell was ordered to provide 130
nights annually of overnight parenting time, and specifically left in place the ten percent
reduction dictated by R.C. 3119.051. However, the magistrate found Snell's testimony
credible that Howell did not have appropriate housing to have the children overnight
regularly, that he was not exercising all his allotted parenting time, and that he was not
paying for daycare as agreed in the original shared parenting plan. Therefore, the
magistrate terminated the additional deviation that had been agreed upon in the original
shared parenting plan because circumstances had changed, and the deviation was no
longer in the best interest of the children.
{¶ 32} The trial court did not violate R.C. 3119.051, nor did it abuse its discretion
when it terminated the additional deviation.
-9-
Butler CA2023-08-093
{¶ 33} Howell's fourth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 34} Assignment of Error No. 5:
IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR A COURT TO
INCLUDE THE DIFFERENCE IN INCOME OF THE PARTIES
IN CALCULATING THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF CHILD
SUPPORT AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND, AT THE SAME
TIME, IGNORE DOWNWARD DEVIATIONS FOR
EXTRAORDINARY PARENTING TIME BASED ON THAT
SAME DISPARITY OF INCOME.
{¶ 35} In his fifth assignment of error, Howell argues the trial court abused its
discretion by considering the disparity in income between the parties when terminating
the agreed deviation in the original shared parenting plan. We disagree.
{¶ 36} "Pursuant to R.C. 3119.22, a trial court may deviate from the standard child
support order if, after considering the factors and criteria set forth in R.C. 3119.23, such
an order would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the
children." Hilbert v. Hilbert, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2015-10-182 and CA2015-11-185,
2016-Ohio-8099, ¶ 29, citing Brown v. Brown, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-184,
2015-Ohio-1930, ¶ 7. In determining if a deviation is in the best interest of the children,
R.C. 3119.23 sets forth a number of factors that the court may consider. Id. Pertinent to
the case at bar, such factors include: extended parenting time or extraordinary costs
associated with parenting time; disparity in income between parties or households, the
relative financial resources, other assets and resources, and needs of each parent; as
well as any other factor for consideration. R.C. 3119.23 (C), (E), and (Q). In reviewing
the previously agreed deviation, the trial court was permitted to consider the disparity in
income and resources between the parties in addition to the changed circumstances
regarding parenting time and Howell's failure to pay for daycare.
{¶ 37} Howell's fifth assignment of error is overruled.
- 10 -
Butler CA2023-08-093
{¶ 38} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in modifying the child support order.
{¶ 39} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
- 11 -