Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3109
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05 (2026)

Child support determinations

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 22, 2001
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 180 - 123rd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) In a divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or child support proceeding, the court may order either or both parents to support or help support their children, without regard to marital misconduct. In determining the amount reasonable or necessary for child support, including the medical needs of the child, the court shall comply with Chapter 3119. of the Revised Code.

(2) The court, in accordance with Chapter 3119. of the Revised Code, shall include in each support order made under this section the requirement that one or both of the parents provide for the health care needs of the child to the satisfaction of the court, and the court shall include in the support order a requirement that all support payments be made through the office of child support in the department of job and family services.

(3) The court shall comply with Chapters 3119., 3121., 3123., and 3125. of the Revised Code when it makes or modifies an order for child support under this section.

(B) The juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction to enter the orders in any case certified to it from another court.

(C) If any person required to pay child support under an order made under division (A) of this section on or after April 15, 1985, or modified on or after December 1, 1986, is found in contempt of court for failure to make support payments under the order, the court that makes the finding, in addition to any other penalty or remedy imposed, shall assess all court costs arising out of the contempt proceeding against the person and require the person to pay any reasonable attorney's fees of any adverse party, as determined by the court, that arose in relation to the act of contempt and, on or after July 1, 1992, shall assess interest on any unpaid amount of child support pursuant to section 3123.17 of the Revised Code.

(D) The court shall not authorize or permit the escrowing, impoundment, or withholding of any child support payment ordered under this section or any other section of the Revised Code because of a denial of or interference with a right of parenting time granted to a parent in an order issued under this section or section 3109.051 or 3109.12 of the Revised Code or companionship or visitation granted in an order issued under this section, section 3109.051, 3109.11, 3109.12, or any other section of the Revised Code, or as a method of enforcing the specific provisions of any such order dealing with parenting time or visitation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 219 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: In re Adoption of B.I. (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-2450.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Adoption of B.I. (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-2450. · cites it 8× ““R.C. 3109.05 sets forth the power of the trial court to make child support orders when a marriage terminates.”
In re Adoption of Ridenour, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 6× “*326 In buttressing their argument, the appellees refer to R.C. 3109.05. At the time this case was decided, R.”
Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 516 N.E.2d 1250 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1986). · cites it 19× “The lower court erred and abused its discretion by applying the visitation provisions of R.C. § 3109.05 (B) to persons whose legal rights vis-a-vis the minor child were not altered by the termination of the marriage of the minor’s parents.”
Swanson v. Swanson, 671 N.E.2d 1333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1996). · cites it 15× “In ordering support continued past Andrea’s eighteenth birthday and through her graduation from high school, the trial court relied on R.C. 3109.05(E), which states: “Notwithstanding section 3109.”
Meyer v. Meyer, 478 N.E.2d 806 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 6× “R.C. 3109.05 sets forth the power of the trial court to make child support orders when a marriage terminates.”
Braatz v. Braatz, 706 N.E.2d 1218 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 3× “04 provides specific guidelines for a trial court to follow in determining whether a prior custody decree should be modified.”
Appleby v. Appleby, 492 N.E.2d 831 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 4× “Modification of visitation rights is governed by R.C. 3109.05 and the specific rules for determining when a court may modify a custody decree are not equally applicable to modification of visitation rights.”
Cheek v. Cheek, 440 N.E.2d 831 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1982). · cites it 6× “In any event, R.C. 3109.05 does not provide for the apportionment of income but, rather, the determination of child support to be paid by custodial or noncustodial parents in such amounts as may reasonably be required in an effort to meet the necessary financial needs of the…”
Miller v. Miller, 635 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1993). · cites it 9× “Upon a review of the statute governing child support, R.C. 3109.05, as well as the Child Support Guidelines set forth in C.”
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 667 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1995). · cites it 4× “03; R.C. 3109.05; State ex rel. Wright v. Indus.”
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 657 N.E.2d 580 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1995). · cites it 5× “R.C. 3109.05, which then controlled both support orders and visitation, stated in subsection (B) that “[t]he court may make any just and reasonable order or decree permitting any parent who is deprived of the care, custody, and control of the children to visit them at the time…”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915. · cites it 2× “On the basis of this argument, Ronald asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in computing child support.”
Show all 219 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(1)(D): 2 cases
In re L.D.C. v. Coniker, 2017-Ohio-800.
Facemyer v. Facemyer, 2026-Ohio-910.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(A): 28 cases
Cheek v. Cheek, 440 N.E.2d 831 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1982). “In any event, R.C. 3109.05 does not provide for the apportionment of income but, rather, the determination of child support to be paid by custodial or noncustodial parents in such amounts as may reasonably be required in an effort to meet the necessary financial needs of the…”
Scholler v. Scholler, 462 N.E.2d 158 (Ohio 1984).
Bright v. Collins, 442 N.E.2d 822 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1982).
Cole v. Cole, 590 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1990).
Woloch v. Foster, 649 N.E.2d 918 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1994).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(A)(1): 13 cases
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915. “On the basis of this argument, Ronald asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in computing child support.”
In re Adoption of T.U., 2020-Ohio-841, 152 N.E.3d 943.
Owens v. Owens, 2022-Ohio-3450.
McClain v. McClain, 623 N.E.2d 242 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1993).
Smith v. Null, 757 N.E.2d 1200 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(A)(1)(a): 3 cases
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 667 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1995). “03; R.C. 3109.05; State ex rel. Wright v. Indus.”
Frost v. Frost, 618 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992).
McNeal v. Cofield, 603 N.E.2d 436 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(A)(2): 5 cases
Meassick v. Meassick, 871 N.E.2d 1210 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2006).
Zacek v. Zacek, 463 N.E.2d 391 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983).
Esber v. Esber, 579 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1989).
Shendel v. Graham, 2017-Ohio-4236, 92 N.E.3d 43.
Collins v. Collins, 712 N.E.2d 800 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(A)(3): 8 cases
In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St. 3d 387 (2002).
In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, 97 Ohio St. 3d 387.
Zacek v. Zacek, 463 N.E.2d 391 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983).
L.B. v. T.B., 2011-Ohio-3418.
In re Bonfield, 96 Ohio St. 3d 218 (2002).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(AX3): 1 case
Riepenhoff v. Riepenhoff, 580 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(B): 18 cases
Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 516 N.E.2d 1250 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1986). “The lower court erred and abused its discretion by applying the visitation provisions of R.C. § 3109.05 (B) to persons whose legal rights vis-a-vis the minor child were not altered by the termination of the marriage of the minor’s parents.”
In re Gibson, 573 N.E.2d 1074 (Ohio 1991).
Braatz v. Braatz, 706 N.E.2d 1218 (Ohio 1999). “04 provides specific guidelines for a trial court to follow in determining whether a prior custody decree should be modified.”
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 657 N.E.2d 580 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1995). “R.C. 3109.05, which then controlled both support orders and visitation, stated in subsection (B) that “[t]he court may make any just and reasonable order or decree permitting any parent who is deprived of the care, custody, and control of the children to visit them at the time…”
Pettry v. Pettry, 486 N.E.2d 213 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(B)(2): 1 case
McClintock v. Gould, 2013-Ohio-5117.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(C): 14 cases
Radford v. Radford, 2011-Ohio-6263.
In re I.L.J., 2019-Ohio-5241.
Dunbar v. Dunbar, 627 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio 1994).
In re I.L.J., 2020-Ohio-5434.
Seaman v. Sloan, 2016-Ohio-5432, 60 N.E.3d 1270.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(D): 6 cases
Miller v. Miller, 635 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1993). “Upon a review of the statute governing child support, R.C. 3109.05, as well as the Child Support Guidelines set forth in C.”
Geary v. Geary, 2015-Ohio-259.
Byard v. Byler, 658 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 1996).
In re Byard, 74 Ohio St. 3d 294 (1996).
C.S.E.A. v. Gatten, 89398 (8-9-2007), 2007 Ohio 4071 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2007).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(D)(11): 1 case
Frick v. Howell, 2015-Ohio-3639.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(E): 4 cases
Swanson v. Swanson, 671 N.E.2d 1333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1996). “In ordering support continued past Andrea’s eighteenth birthday and through her graduation from high school, the trial court relied on R.C. 3109.05(E), which states: “Notwithstanding section 3109.”
Abbas v. Abbas, 715 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1998).
Smith v. Smith, 694 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997).
Gleason v. Gleason, 718 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(E)(1)(a): 2 cases
Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre, 653 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1994).
Wright v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-4138.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(F)(1): 1 case
Sayre v. Furgeson, 2016-Ohio-3500, 66 N.E.3d 332.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(H)(1): 1 case
State ex rel. Brown v. Lemmerman, 2010-Ohio-137, 921 N.E.2d 1049.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.05(a): 1 case
In re Harbour, 227 B.R. 131 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.