(A)(1) A court that issues a shared parenting order in accordance with section 3109.04 of the Revised Code shall order an amount of child support to be paid under the child support order that is calculated in accordance with the schedule and with the worksheet, except that, if that amount would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and therefore not in the best interest of the child because of the extraordinary circumstances of the parents or because of any other factors or criteria set forth in section 3119.23 of the Revised Code, the court may deviate from that amount.
(2) The court shall consider extraordinary circumstances and other factors or criteria if it deviates from the amount described in division (A)(1) of this section and shall enter in the journal the amount described in division (A)(1) of this section its determination that the amount would be unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the best interest of the child, and findings of fact supporting its determination.
(B) For the purposes of this section, "extraordinary circumstances of the parents" includes all of the following:
(1) The ability of each parent to maintain adequate housing for the children;
(2) Each parent's expenses, including child care expenses, school tuition, medical expenses, dental expenses, and any other expenses the court considers relevant;
(3) Any other circumstances the court considers relevant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915.
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915. · cites it 7דFor this reason, Ronald contends that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements of R.C. 3119.24 and should, therefore, be reversed.”
Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 828 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5ד” However, in the context of a shared-parenting order, R.C. 3119.24 authorizes the court to deviate from the guideline calculation if that amount “would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of…”
Irish v. Irish, 2011-Ohio-3111. · cites it 9ד23 and each of 4 the four extraordinary circumstances set forth in R.C. 3119.24. After it determined that some of those factors were “potentially relevant” based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and after it analyzed those factors and circumstances, the court determined…”
In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, 95 N.E.3d 799. · cites it 6ד{¶ 14} R.C. 3119.24 applies in cases involving shared parenting.”
Mangen v. Mangen, 2021-Ohio-3693. · cites it 7דChild Support Calculation Under R.C. 3119.24 {¶ 5} Douglas’s first assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT [ERRED] AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AS A MATTER OF FACT IN THE MANNER AND METHOD IT CALCULATED FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION.”
Caleshu v. Caleshu, 2020-Ohio-4075. · cites it 4דAs to matters involving shared parenting, R.C. 3119.24 permits a trial court to deviate from the guideline calculation if that amount "would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and therefore not in the best interest of the child because of the…”
Hurte v. Hurte, 842 N.E.2d 1058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3ד24(A)(1) allows a court to deviate from the rebuttably presumed amount “if that amount would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of the extraordinary circumstances of the parents or because of any…”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2018-Ohio-3616. · cites it 6דLegal Standard {¶31} R.C. 3119.24, which governs the award of child support when the trial court issues a shared parenting order, reads, in its relevant part, as follows: A court that issues a shared parenting order in accordance with section 3109.”
Mattis v. Mattis, 2016-Ohio-1084. · cites it 4ד) Thus, Father is not entitled to an automatic credit or reduction in the child support, however, the time the children spend with him was an extraordinary factor that the trial court considered.”
Getreu v. Getreu, 2021-Ohio-2761. · cites it 5דR.C. 3119.24; Glover v. Canann, 11th Dist.”
Borer v. Borer, 2009-Ohio-6522. · cites it 12ד13-06-38, 2007-Ohio- 3341, this Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the judgment of the trial court, finding that, although the magistrate “found that the imposition of the child support amount calculated pursuant to the child support schedule would be unjust,…”
Hackett v. Hackett, 2013-Ohio-4684. · cites it 12דTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BY FAILING TO APPLY R.C. §3119.24 IN ITS ANALYSIS OF THE DEVIATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.”
Mattis v. Mattis, 2016-Ohio-1084. “) Thus, Father is not entitled to an automatic credit or reduction in the child support, however, the time the children spend with him was an extraordinary factor that the trial court considered.”
In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, 95 N.E.3d 799. “{¶ 14} R.C. 3119.24 applies in cases involving shared parenting.”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915. “For this reason, Ronald contends that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements of R.C. 3119.24 and should, therefore, be reversed.”
Hurte v. Hurte, 842 N.E.2d 1058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “24(A)(1) allows a court to deviate from the rebuttably presumed amount “if that amount would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of the extraordinary circumstances of the parents or because of any…”
Irish v. Irish, 2011-Ohio-3111. “23 and each of 4 the four extraordinary circumstances set forth in R.C. 3119.24. After it determined that some of those factors were “potentially relevant” based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and after it analyzed those factors and circumstances, the court determined…”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915. “For this reason, Ronald contends that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements of R.C. 3119.24 and should, therefore, be reversed.”
Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 828 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “” However, in the context of a shared-parenting order, R.C. 3119.24 authorizes the court to deviate from the guideline calculation if that amount “would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of…”
Hurte v. Hurte, 842 N.E.2d 1058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “24(A)(1) allows a court to deviate from the rebuttably presumed amount “if that amount would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of the extraordinary circumstances of the parents or because of any…”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2018-Ohio-3616. “Legal Standard {¶31} R.C. 3119.24, which governs the award of child support when the trial court issues a shared parenting order, reads, in its relevant part, as follows: A court that issues a shared parenting order in accordance with section 3109.”
Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 828 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “” However, in the context of a shared-parenting order, R.C. 3119.24 authorizes the court to deviate from the guideline calculation if that amount “would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of…”
In re K.R.B., 2017-Ohio-7071, 95 N.E.3d 799. “{¶ 14} R.C. 3119.24 applies in cases involving shared parenting.”
Siferd v. Siferd, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d 915. “For this reason, Ronald contends that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements of R.C. 3119.24 and should, therefore, be reversed.”
Caleshu v. Caleshu, 2020-Ohio-4075. “As to matters involving shared parenting, R.C. 3119.24 permits a trial court to deviate from the guideline calculation if that amount "would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and therefore not in the best interest of the child because of the…”
Hurte v. Hurte, 842 N.E.2d 1058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “24(A)(1) allows a court to deviate from the rebuttably presumed amount “if that amount would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and would not be in the best interest of the child because of the extraordinary circumstances of the parents or because of any…”
Caleshu v. Caleshu, 2020-Ohio-4075. “As to matters involving shared parenting, R.C. 3119.24 permits a trial court to deviate from the guideline calculation if that amount "would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent and therefore not in the best interest of the child because of the…”
Irish v. Irish, 2011-Ohio-3111. “23 and each of 4 the four extraordinary circumstances set forth in R.C. 3119.24. After it determined that some of those factors were “potentially relevant” based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and after it analyzed those factors and circumstances, the court determined…”
Borer v. Borer, 2009-Ohio-6522. “13-06-38, 2007-Ohio- 3341, this Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the judgment of the trial court, finding that, although the magistrate “found that the imposition of the child support amount calculated pursuant to the child support schedule would be unjust,…”
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.