DocketNumber: Case No. CT98-0020
Judges: <italic>Hoffman, J.</italic>
Filed Date: 10/13/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Subsequent to the establishment of paternity, the trial court conducted hearings relative to child support and visitation culminating in a Judgment Entry filed March 16, 1998. It is from that judgment entry appellant prosecutes this appeal assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING CERTAIN VISITATION RIGHTS TO APPELLEE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF VISITATION TO APPELLEE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE APPELLEE TO PAY $50.00 PER MONTH TOWARD HIS CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES.
Shortly after Sarah's birth, appellee contacted appellant and requested to see Sarah. For the next year, appellee visited Sarah two to three times a week at the home of appellant. The visitations ended in the summer of 1993, when appellee moved to Las Vegas, Nevada. Between the time of appellant's relocation to Las Vegas and the first date of hearing before the trial court on January 31, 1997, appellee only visited Sarah a couple of times at appellant's home and once during an unsupervised visitation at a shopping mall in Zanesville.
In addition to personal visitation, appellee telephoned Sarah at least on a weekly basis. Following the hearing on January 31, 1997, appellee visited Sarah only twice before the next hearing date on October 31, 1997. Sarah refers to appellee as "Daddy".
On January 23, 1997, a little more than one week before the first scheduled hearing, appellant's new husband filed a petition for adoption of Sarah in the Muskingum County Probate Court. Appellee refused to consent to the adoption and the Probate Court ruled his consent was required. The Probate Court denied the adoption petition. This Court affirmed the Probate Court's decision in a separate appeal.
In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment.Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983),
The visitation schedule provides for appellee to visit Sarah not less than seven (7) consecutive days during her 1998 summer school recess. Beginning in 1999, visitation is extended to not less than twenty-one (21) consecutive days during summer school recess.
R.C.
Contrary to appellant's broad assertion, upon review of the record and the trial court's judgment entry, we conclude the trial court did consider the factors upon which evidence was presented by the parties according to the directive of R.C.
Appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
In this assignment of error, appellant argues by only ordering $50.00 per month payment on the back child support order, the trial court abused its discretion because it will take over twenty-three (23) years to repay the back child support order at that rate. We disagree.
In light of the prospective child support order, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in setting the payment schedule for back child support. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's third assignment of error.
The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J., Farmer, P.J. and Reader, J. concur.
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the March 16, 1998 Judgment Entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.