Background
Zachary and Kristen Scharf married in 2015 and have two young children. Zachary filed for divorce in 2021. During the case, temporary orders initially provided both parents with shared custodial status and alternating parenting time, but later named Kristen the temporary residential parent and legal custodian, with Zachary receiving alternating-weekend and midweek parenting time.
After a lengthy trial, the Franklin County Domestic Relations Court granted a divorce, made Kristen the sole legal custodian and residential parent, and ordered Zachary to pay $2,168.16 per month in child support. It denied Kristen spousal support and attorney fees, split the children’s tax exemptions, and allocated extraordinary medical expenses 60 percent to Zachary and 40 percent to Kristen. Zachary appealed the custody rulings; Kristen cross-appealed the financial rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District upheld the custody decision. The trial court acted within its discretion in striking Zachary’s shared-parenting plan because he filed it after resting his case and more than two years after filing for divorce. It also reasonably awarded Kristen sole custody after considering the statutory best-interest factors, including the parties’ persistent communication and joint-decisionmaking problems, the children’s adjustment in the Dayton area, and Kristen’s family support system.
The court rejected Zachary’s claim that the guardian ad litem’s alleged bias required shared parenting. Zachary had not sought the GAL’s removal below, and the custody decision rested on more than the GAL’s recommendation.
On Kristen’s cross-appeal, the court reversed the income calculations used for child support. The trial court did not adequately explain its treatment of Zachary’s second full-time job and improperly imputed $60,000 in income to Kristen without expressly finding that she was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. The court remanded for corrected income determinations and reconsideration of related child-support matters, including childcare, cash medical support, and extraordinary medical expenses. It otherwise affirmed the denials of spousal support and attorney fees and the split tax exemptions.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court may reject a shared-parenting plan filed after the statutory deadline, particularly when the opposing party lacks a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- Sole custody may be appropriate where both parents have positive relationships with the children but cannot reliably communicate or make joint decisions.
- Potential income cannot be imputed for child-support purposes without an express finding that the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that custody determinations receive substantial appellate deference when the domestic-relations court addresses the applicable best-interest factors and its findings are supported by the record.
It also emphasizes that child-support calculations require accurate income findings. A court cannot disregard evidence of ongoing employment or impute earnings without the statutory predicate findings, and related support components must be reconsidered when income figures change.