(A) Except when the parents have split parental rights and responsibilities, a parent's child support obligation for a child for whom the parent is the residential parent and legal custodian shall be presumed to be spent on that child and shall not become part of a child support order, and a parent's child support obligation for a child for whom the parent is not the residential parent and legal custodian shall become part of a child support order.
(B) If the parents have split parental rights and responsibilities, the child support obligations of the parents shall be offset, and the parent with the larger child support obligation shall pay the net amount pursuant to the child support order.
(C) If neither parent of a child who is the subject of a child support order is the residential parent and legal custodian of the child and the child resides with a caretaker, each parent shall pay that parent's child support obligation pursuant to the child support order.
Last updated October 5, 2023 at 4:41 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: France v. France, 2011-Ohio-3025.
France v. France, 2011-Ohio-3025. · cites it 19ד07(A), the trial court was required to presume that the Father’s child-support obligation was spent on his children as part of his daily spending, and thus, the court did not have the authority in this case to order the Father to pay child support to the Mother.”
Hattenbach v. Watson, 2016-Ohio-5648. · cites it 5ד” {¶ 9} Watson attempts to distinguish Pauly, claiming that R.C. 3119.07 is applicable to this case, by arguing that the context of the Shared Parenting Plan clearly demonstrates that the parties intended to make one parent a non-residential, non- custodial parent during the…”
Hensley v. Hensley, 2024-Ohio-5751, 258 N.E.3d 735. · cites it 9דFather asserts that as the sole residential parent and legal custodian of the children, he should have been designated the child support obligee pursuant to R.C. 3119.07(A) and not required to pay child support to Mother.”
Pelger v. Pelger, 2019-Ohio-1280. · cites it 2ד1 “[T]he child support computation 1 This Fifth District case noted that R.C. 3119.07(C)(7) defines “gross income” as including spousal support “actually received.”
In re A.D., 2023-Ohio-2442. “231; R.C. 3119.07(C). Thus, this portion of their argument lacks merit.”
Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 2019-Ohio-733. “See R.C. 3119.07(B). The basic child support schedule is stated in R.”
Ash v. Dean, 2016-Ohio-5589. · cites it 2ד07(A): [e]xcept when the parents have split parental rights and responsibilities, a parent's child support obligation for a child for whom the parent is the residential parent and legal custodian shall be presumed to be spent on that child and shall not become part of a child…”
MacKnight v. MacKnight, 2022-Ohio-648. “" In situations where one parent is the sole residential parent, R.C. 3119.07(A) provides that the nonresidential parent shall be named the child support obligor.”
Mayberry v. Mayberry, 2016-Ohio-1031. “" R.C. 3119.07(C)(7)(e). A "[n]onrecurring or unsustainable income or cash flow item" is: [a]n income or cash flow item the parent receives in any year or for any number of years not to exceed three years that the parent does not expect to continue to receive on a regular basis.”
Lindman v. Geissler, 872 N.E.2d 356 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2007). “Appellant appealed to this court, asserting: “The trial court erred when it failed to designate [appellee] as the obligor and [appellant] as the obligee on the child support worksheet.”
Gamble v. Gamble, 2025-Ohio-2381. · cites it 13ד) (noting that, "[i]n situations where one parent is the sole residential parent, R.C. 3119.07[A] provides that the nonresidential parent shall be named the child support obligor").”
Saylers v. Salyers, 2025-Ohio-1605. “More importantly, pursuant to R.C. 3119.07, “the parent who has been designated the residential parent shall not be ordered to pay the child support figure that appears in his or her column on line 24 of the worksheet provided in the Revised Code.”
France v. France, 2011-Ohio-3025. “07(A), the trial court was required to presume that the Father’s child-support obligation was spent on his children as part of his daily spending, and thus, the court did not have the authority in this case to order the Father to pay child support to the Mother.”
Hattenbach v. Watson, 2016-Ohio-5648. “” {¶ 9} Watson attempts to distinguish Pauly, claiming that R.C. 3119.07 is applicable to this case, by arguing that the context of the Shared Parenting Plan clearly demonstrates that the parties intended to make one parent a non-residential, non- custodial parent during the…”
Hensley v. Hensley, 2024-Ohio-5751, 258 N.E.3d 735. “Father asserts that as the sole residential parent and legal custodian of the children, he should have been designated the child support obligee pursuant to R.C. 3119.07(A) and not required to pay child support to Mother.”
Ash v. Dean, 2016-Ohio-5589. “07(A): [e]xcept when the parents have split parental rights and responsibilities, a parent's child support obligation for a child for whom the parent is the residential parent and legal custodian shall be presumed to be spent on that child and shall not become part of a child…”
MacKnight v. MacKnight, 2022-Ohio-648. “" In situations where one parent is the sole residential parent, R.C. 3119.07(A) provides that the nonresidential parent shall be named the child support obligor.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.07(B): 2 cases
Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 2019-Ohio-733. “See R.C. 3119.07(B). The basic child support schedule is stated in R.”
Pelger v. Pelger, 2019-Ohio-1280. “1 “[T]he child support computation 1 This Fifth District case noted that R.C. 3119.07(C)(7) defines “gross income” as including spousal support “actually received.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.07(C)(7)(e): 1 case
Mayberry v. Mayberry, 2016-Ohio-1031. “" R.C. 3119.07(C)(7)(e). A "[n]onrecurring or unsustainable income or cash flow item" is: [a]n income or cash flow item the parent receives in any year or for any number of years not to exceed three years that the parent does not expect to continue to receive on a regular basis.”
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.