Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3119
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23 (2026)

Factors to be considered in granting a deviation

✓ 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:
October 17, 2019
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 166 - 133rd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

The court may consider any of the following factors in determining whether to grant a deviation pursuant to section 3119.22 of the Revised Code:

(A) Special and unusual needs of the child or children, including needs arising from the physical or psychological condition of the child or children;

(B) Other court-ordered payments;

(C) Extended parenting time or extraordinary costs associated with parenting time, including extraordinary travel expenses when exchanging the child or children for parenting time;

(D) The financial resources and the earning ability of the child or children;

(E) The relative financial resources, including the disparity in income between parties or households, other assets, and the needs of each parent;

(F) The obligee's income, if the obligee's annual income is equal to or less than one hundred per cent of the federal poverty level;

(G) Benefits that either parent receives from remarriage or sharing living expenses with another person;

(H) The amount of federal, state, and local taxes actually paid or estimated to be paid by a parent or both of the parents;

(I) Significant in-kind contributions from a parent, including, but not limited to, direct payment for lessons, sports equipment, schooling, or clothing;

(J) Extraordinary work-related expenses incurred by either parent;

(K) The standard of living and circumstances of each parent and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage continued or had the parents been married;

(L) The educational opportunities that would have been available to the child had the circumstances requiring a child support order not arisen;

(M) The responsibility of each parent for the support of others, including support of a child or children with disabilities who are not subject to the support order;

(N) Post-secondary educational expenses paid for by a parent for the parent's own child or children, regardless of whether the child or children are emancipated;

(O) Costs incurred or reasonably anticipated to be incurred by the parents in compliance with court-ordered reunification efforts in child abuse, neglect, or dependency cases;

(P) Extraordinary child care costs required for the child or children that exceed the maximum state-wide average cost estimate as described in division (P)(1)(d) of section 3119.05 of the Revised Code, including extraordinary costs associated with caring for a child or children with specialized physical, psychological, or educational needs;

(Q) Any other relevant factor.

If the court grants a deviation based on division (Q) of this section, it shall specifically state in the order the facts that are the basis for the deviation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 247 cases (81 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, 95 N.E.3d 799.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, 95 N.E.3d 799. · cites it 12× “The juvenile court calculated the parties' annual child support obligations pursuant to the applicable worksheet and, after considering the factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23, found that "the annual obligation would be unjust and inappropriate and would not be in the best…”
Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014-Ohio-1252. · cites it 12× “{¶ 48} As explained above, this is a case where the combined income of the parents exceeds $150,000 and, therefore, the trial court was required to make a case-by-case analysis to determine the appropriate amount of child support. This court has previously determined that, in…”
Short v. Short, 2019-Ohio-5315, 150 N.E.3d 421. · cites it 18× “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Caleshu v. Caleshu, 2020-Ohio-4075. · cites it 10× “22, a court may deviate from the guideline amount of child support if, after consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23, the court determines that the guideline amount "would be unjust or inappropriate and therefore not be in the best interest of the child.”
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018-Ohio-1880. · cites it 8× “By statute, if the actual annual obligation “would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child 9 because of the extraordinary circumstance of the parents or because of any other factors or criteria set forth in…”
Abrams v. Abrams, 2017-Ohio-4319, 92 N.E.3d 368. · cites it 6× “23 of the Revised Code, the court determines that the amount calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet, through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest…”
Habtemariam v. Worku, 2020-Ohio-3044. · cites it 6× “22, a trial court may deviate from the amount of child support that would otherwise result from the use of the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet if, after considering the factors and criteria set forth in R.C. 3119.23, the court determines the amount…”
Mangen v. Mangen, 2021-Ohio-3693. · cites it 11× “{¶ 9} The factors identified in R.C. 3119.23 include: (A) Special and unusual needs of the child or children, including needs -5- arising from the physical or psychological condition of the child or children; (B) Other court-ordered payments; (C) Extended parenting time or…”
MacKnight v. MacKnight, 2022-Ohio-648. · cites it 8× “The court considered the deviation factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23, and noted that Father spent approximately 228 overnights with the children during the year.”
Irish v. Irish, 2011-Ohio-3111. · cites it 8× “By relying only on the agreement, the trial court failed to consider the statutory factors for deviation set forth in R.C. 3119.23. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court.”
Smith v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4755. · cites it 32× “22, R.C. 3119.23, R.C. 3119.231, R.C. 3119.24, however, the Court finds that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule is unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the children.”
Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 828 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005). · cites it 3× “The magistrate also found that the only relevant factor enumerated in R.C. 3119.23 was (D), the extended parenting time with the obligor.”
Show all 247 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(A): 12 cases
Feldmiller v. Feldmiller, 2012-Ohio-4621.
Short v. Short, 2019-Ohio-5315, 150 N.E.3d 421. “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Facemyer v. Facemyer, 2021-Ohio-48.
Wiebusch v. Wiebusch, 927 N.E.2d 64 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010).
In re O.G.H., 2023-Ohio-1555, 214 N.E.3d 654.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(A)(2): 2 cases
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915.
Siferd v. Siferd, 2018-Ohio-3616.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(A)(C)(E)(G): 1 case
In re S.J.A., 2021-Ohio-2712.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(B): 3 cases
In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, 95 N.E.3d 799. “The juvenile court calculated the parties' annual child support obligations pursuant to the applicable worksheet and, after considering the factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23, found that "the annual obligation would be unjust and inappropriate and would not be in the best…”
Yousef v. Iskander, 2021-Ohio-3322.
In re Z.C., 2020-Ohio-3635.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(C): 25 cases
Havrilla v. Havrilla, 2014-Ohio-2747.
Mangen v. Mangen, 2021-Ohio-3693. “{¶ 9} The factors identified in R.C. 3119.23 include: (A) Special and unusual needs of the child or children, including needs -5- arising from the physical or psychological condition of the child or children; (B) Other court-ordered payments; (C) Extended parenting time or…”
MacKnight v. MacKnight, 2022-Ohio-648. “The court considered the deviation factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23, and noted that Father spent approximately 228 overnights with the children during the year.”
Cottrell v. Cottrell, 2013-Ohio-2397.
King v. King, 2021-Ohio-2970.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(D): 30 cases
Short v. Short, 2019-Ohio-5315, 150 N.E.3d 421. “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014-Ohio-1252. “{¶ 48} As explained above, this is a case where the combined income of the parents exceeds $150,000 and, therefore, the trial court was required to make a case-by-case analysis to determine the appropriate amount of child support. This court has previously determined that, in…”
Batcher v. Pierce, 2013-Ohio-4677.
Hilbert v. Hilbert, 2016-Ohio-8099, 74 N.E.3d 977.
Wiebusch v. Wiebusch, 927 N.E.2d 64 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(E): 8 cases
Caleshu v. Caleshu, 2020-Ohio-4075. “22, a court may deviate from the guideline amount of child support if, after consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23, the court determines that the guideline amount "would be unjust or inappropriate and therefore not be in the best interest of the child.”
Smith v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4755. “22, R.C. 3119.23, R.C. 3119.231, R.C. 3119.24, however, the Court finds that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule is unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the children.”
In re R.M.H., 2025-Ohio-2452.
Brew v. Brew, 2023-Ohio-1457.
Combs v. Ellington, 2022-Ohio-3514.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(F): 4 cases
Abrams v. Abrams, 2017-Ohio-4319, 92 N.E.3d 368. “23 of the Revised Code, the court determines that the amount calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet, through the line establishing the actual annual obligation, would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest…”
Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014-Ohio-1252. “{¶ 48} As explained above, this is a case where the combined income of the parents exceeds $150,000 and, therefore, the trial court was required to make a case-by-case analysis to determine the appropriate amount of child support. This court has previously determined that, in…”
Schaible v. Slater, 2025-Ohio-5799.
In re M.J.M., 2019-Ohio-4799.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(G): 9 cases
Short v. Short, 2019-Ohio-5315, 150 N.E.3d 421. “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018-Ohio-1880. “By statute, if the actual annual obligation “would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child 9 because of the extraordinary circumstance of the parents or because of any other factors or criteria set forth in…”
Smith v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4755. “22, R.C. 3119.23, R.C. 3119.231, R.C. 3119.24, however, the Court finds that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule is unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the children.”
Maiorana v. Maiorana, 2011-Ohio-4464.
Hackett v. Hackett, 2013-Ohio-4684.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(G)(H)(L): 1 case
Gorman v. Gorman, 2013-Ohio-5643.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(H): 9 cases
Habtemariam v. Worku, 2020-Ohio-3044. “22, a trial court may deviate from the amount of child support that would otherwise result from the use of the basic child support schedule and the applicable worksheet if, after considering the factors and criteria set forth in R.C. 3119.23, the court determines the amount…”
Short v. Short, 2019-Ohio-5315, 150 N.E.3d 421. “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Batcher v. Pierce, 2013-Ohio-4677.
Reik v. Bowden, 872 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2007).
Baker v. Baker, 2013-Ohio-1816, 991 N.E.2d 717.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(I): 4 cases
Ayers v. Ayers, 2022-Ohio-403.
Smith v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4755. “22, R.C. 3119.23, R.C. 3119.231, R.C. 3119.24, however, the Court finds that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule is unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the children.”
Shteiwi v. Abdelmassih, 2025-Ohio-2901.
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 2021-Ohio-2140, 175 N.E.3d 611.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(J): 11 cases
In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, 95 N.E.3d 799. “The juvenile court calculated the parties' annual child support obligations pursuant to the applicable worksheet and, after considering the factors set forth in R.C. 3119.23, found that "the annual obligation would be unjust and inappropriate and would not be in the best…”
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018-Ohio-1880. “By statute, if the actual annual obligation “would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child 9 because of the extraordinary circumstance of the parents or because of any other factors or criteria set forth in…”
In re Custody of Harris, 857 N.E.2d 1235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006).
Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014-Ohio-1252. “{¶ 48} As explained above, this is a case where the combined income of the parents exceeds $150,000 and, therefore, the trial court was required to make a case-by-case analysis to determine the appropriate amount of child support. This court has previously determined that, in…”
Hackett v. Hackett, 2013-Ohio-4684.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(K): 5 cases
In re R.M.H., 2025-Ohio-2452.
Smith v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4755. “22, R.C. 3119.23, R.C. 3119.231, R.C. 3119.24, however, the Court finds that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule is unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the children.”
Babe v. Babe, 2017-Ohio-4384.
Downing v. Downing, 2025-Ohio-2505.
Eggleston v. Wood, 2025-Ohio-5292, 275 N.E.3d 261.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(L): 2 cases
In re R.M.H., 2025-Ohio-2452.
Kulis v. Kulis, 2022-Ohio-3114.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(M): 3 cases
Wilburn v. Ferguson, 2021-Ohio-4256.
Koscho v. Hill, 2021-Ohio-110.
Babe v. Babe, 2017-Ohio-4384.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(N): 1 case
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018-Ohio-1880. “By statute, if the actual annual obligation “would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child 9 because of the extraordinary circumstance of the parents or because of any other factors or criteria set forth in…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(P): 8 cases
Havrilla v. Havrilla, 2014-Ohio-2747.
Short v. Short, 2019-Ohio-5315, 150 N.E.3d 421. “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Rummelhoff v. Rummelhoff, 2020-Ohio-2928.
Batcher v. Pierce, 2013-Ohio-4677.
Hackett v. Hackett, 2013-Ohio-4684.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(Q): 4 cases
Smith v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4755. “22, R.C. 3119.23, R.C. 3119.231, R.C. 3119.24, however, the Court finds that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the basic child support schedule is unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the children.”
Keller v. Keller, 2022-Ohio-4098.
Shteiwi v. Abdelmassih, 2025-Ohio-2901.
Koscho v. Hill, 2021-Ohio-110.
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.