Arthur v. Arthur - 130 Ohio App. 3d 398, 720 N.E.2d 176 (1998)

Rule:

During a divorce proceeding, a trial court is required to allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor children pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.041(A). The trial court has two options when allocating parental rights and responsibilities. The court may either designate one parent as the residential parent and legal custodian who bares the primary rights and responsibilities for the care of the children, or the trial court may issue a shared parenting order requiring the parents to share all or some of the aspects of the physical and legal care of the children.

Facts:

Plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee Cindy A. Arthur (hereinafter "wife") and defendant-appellee/cross-appellant Michael J. Arthur (hereinafter "husband") were married in Vincennes, Indiana on August 15, 1981. Four children were born as issue of the marriage. The family’s life centered around the World Harvest Church, including worship, friendships, and activities. The children attended a church-affiliated school, and their contacts outside the church were limited. In 1994, husband left his position with the Church; prior to leaving his employment, husband began to disassociate himself from the institution and its members. In December 1995, husband informed wife that he desired a divorce. On or about December 24, 1995, husband moved out of the marital residence. On January 12, 1996, wife filed a complaint for divorce in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. At trial, Dr. John Mason, the court appointed psychologist, reiterated the concerns he voiced in his report to the trial court regarding the children's attendance at the church-affiliated school which he opined shielded them from the real world. Dr. Mason testified sports were paramount in the boys’ lives. With husband, the boys became involved in organized, competitive sports leagues. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 12, 1997. On October 16, 1997, the trial court filed the Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce. Pursuant to the divorce decree, wife was named the residential parent for school purposes of Megan and Mary, and husband was named the residential parent for school purposes of Jacob and Eric. The trial court ordered husband to pay child support and spousal support constituting over 75 percent of the husband’s monthly income. The wife appealed, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by separating the four children and designating the father as residential parent for the parties’ two sons. The husband cross-appealed, contending that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ordering the husband to pay child support and spousal support which exceeded 50% of the husband’s net income.

Issue:

1. Did the trial court err in designating the husband as the residential parent of the parties’ two sons?
2. Did the trial court err in ordering the husband to pay child support and spousal support which constituted over 75% of the husband’s monthly income?

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court vacated and remanded the decision which ordered the husband to pay child support and spousal support. The court reasoned that although the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the husband to pay combined support in excess of 50 percent of his net income, it did err in ordering an amount which constituted over 75 percent of husband's monthly income. The court further reasoned that the higher amount clearly exceeded the withholding limits imposed by Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3113.21 and 15 U.S.C.S. § 1673(b). The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered a split custody plan. The court reasoned in part that although it did not encourage a trial court to resolve a custody dispute in such a manner, under the facts of the case it was warranted. The court reasoned further that by designating the husband as the residential parent of the two boys, they were given an opportunity to engage in organized sports, activities which were extremely important to them.