In The Court Of Appeals First Appellate District Of Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio (Page 3 of 4) in pdf

OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Speller now appeals, raising two interrelated assignments of error for our

review. Speller argues that the trial court erred in modifying his child-support

obligation and setting a retroactive child-support order when it lacked any

calculations that were based upon the parties’ income and child-support worksheets.

We agree.

While a trial court’s decision regarding child-support obligations is generally

governed by an abuse-of-discretion standard, a trial “court’s discretion is not

unfettered.”

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “(1) the child support guidelines

require the trial court to complete a child support computation worksheet and

include it in the record; (2) this requirement is mandatory and must be literally and

technically followed; (3) the court must enter any deviation from the applicable

worksheet and the basic child support schedule in its journal and must include

findings of fact to support such a determination.”

R.C. 3119.02 also explicitly

provides that the trial court must attach a completed child-support worksheet to any

judgment entry in which it orders or modifies child support.

When Speller moved to modify his child-support obligation, the trial court was

required to complete a new child-support worksheet. Because the trial court failed to

complete a new child-support worksheet and to make it a part of the record, we are

unable to engage in any meaningful review of its decision modifying his child-support

obligation.

Furthermore, in the absence of a completed child-support worksheet, the

Sapinsley v. Sapinsley, 171 Ohio App.3d 74, 2007-Ohio-1320, 869 N.E.2d 702, at ¶8.

DePalmo v. DePalmo, 78 Ohio St.3d 535, 538, 1997-Ohio-184, 679 N.E.2d 266, citing Marker v.

Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139, 601 N.E.2d 496, paragraphs one through three of the syllabus.

See Sapinsley, supra, at ¶¶6-10 (distinguishing Carr v. Blake [Feb. 18, 2000], 1st Dist. No. C-

990174 on the basis that this court had an extensive record that was available for review in Carr,

including the parties’ proposed child-support worksheets). This case is also distinguishable from

Carr because the record contains no proposed child-support worksheets, and because the trial

court in its written decision did not clearly identify Speller’s income at the time he moved to

modify his child-support obligation.

In The Court Of Appeals First Appellate District Of Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio Page 3