Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3119 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23 (2026)

Factors to be considered in granting a deviation

✓ current as of May 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re K.R.B., 2017 Ohio 7071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 18× “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Caleshu v. Caleshu, 2020 Ohio 4075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · 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. 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Short v. Short, 2019 Ohio 5315 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Facemyer v. Facemyer, 2021 Ohio 48 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Wiebusch v. Wiebusch, 927 N.E.2d 64 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
In re O.G.H., 2023 Ohio 1555 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(A)(2) — 2 cases
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017 Ohio 8624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Siferd v. Siferd, 2018 Ohio 3616 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(A)(C)(E)(G) — 1 case
In re S.J.A., 2021 Ohio 2712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(B) — 3 cases
In re K.R.B., 2017 Ohio 7071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
In re Z.C., 2020 Ohio 3635 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(C) — 25 cases
Havrilla v. Havrilla, 2014 Ohio 2747 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Mangen v. Mangen, 2021 Ohio 3693 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
King v. King, 2021 Ohio 2970 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(D) — 30 cases
Short v. Short, 2019 Ohio 5315 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014 Ohio 1252 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Hilbert v. Hilbert, 2016 Ohio 8099 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Wiebusch v. Wiebusch, 927 N.E.2d 64 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(E) — 8 cases
Caleshu v. Caleshu, 2020 Ohio 4075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Brew v. Brew, 2023 Ohio 1457 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Combs v. Ellington, 2022 Ohio 3514 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(F) — 4 cases
Abrams v. Abrams, 2017 Ohio 4319 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
In re M.J.M., 2019 Ohio 4799 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(G) — 9 cases
Short v. Short, 2019 Ohio 5315 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018 Ohio 1880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Hackett v. Hackett, 2013 Ohio 4684 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(G)(H)(L) — 1 case
Gorman v. Gorman, 2013 Ohio 5643 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(H) — 9 cases
Habtemariam v. Worku, 2020 Ohio 3044 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Batcher v. Pierce, 2013 Ohio 4677 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Reik v. Bowden, 872 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
Baker v. Baker, 2013 Ohio 1816 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(I) — 4 cases
Ayers v. Ayers, 2022 Ohio 403 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Smith v. Smith, 2023 Ohio 4755 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 2021 Ohio 2140 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(J) — 11 cases
In re K.R.B., 2017 Ohio 7071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “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. 2006).
Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014 Ohio 1252 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 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 Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(K) — 5 cases
In re R.M.H., 2025 Ohio 2452 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Smith v. Smith, 2023 Ohio 4755 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Downing v. Downing, 2025 Ohio 2505 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Eggleston v. Wood, 2025 Ohio 5292 (Ohio 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(L) — 2 cases
In re R.M.H., 2025 Ohio 2452 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Kulis v. Kulis, 2022 Ohio 3114 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(M) — 3 cases
Wilburn v. Ferguson, 2021 Ohio 4256 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Koscho v. Hill, 2021 Ohio 110 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Babe v. Babe, 2017 Ohio 4384 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(N) — 1 case
Trombley v. Trombley, 2018 Ohio 1880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Short v. Short, 2019 Ohio 5315 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “22, and R.C. 3119.23. See A.S. v. J.W., 157 Ohio St.”
Rummelhoff v. Rummelhoff, 2020 Ohio 2928 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Batcher v. Pierce, 2013 Ohio 4677 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Hackett v. Hackett, 2013 Ohio 4684 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.23(Q) — 4 cases
Smith v. Smith, 2023 Ohio 4755 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Shteiwi v. Abdelmassih, 2025 Ohio 2901 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Koscho v. Hill, 2021 Ohio 110 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
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.