Background
Leo Swank and Lynette Swank, now known as Reddaway, divorced in 2015 and share a child, K.S. Their January 2021 Second Amended Shared Parenting Plan governed parenting time and responsibility for the child’s expenses. In December 2023, Mother moved to modify child support and to hold Father in contempt for allegedly failing to reimburse expenses, including travel and lodging for K.S.’s out-of-state gymnastics competitions. Father later moved to modify shared parenting.
A magistrate concluded that the plan did not require Father to share the gymnastics-related hotel, airfare, rental-car, and mileage costs. For covered expenses, the magistrate found Father had paid $4,036.45 against obligations of $3,943.40, producing a $93.05 overpayment and defeating Mother’s contempt claim. The magistrate also found Mother voluntarily underemployed, imputed $76,792 in annual income to her, used $96,032 as Father’s income, removed Father’s 10% parenting-time deviation, and set support at $886.92 per month effective December 7, 2023. The trial court overruled Mother’s objections, and she appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. Reviewing the shared-parenting plan de novo, it held that the agreement unambiguously placed transportation responsibility on the parent caring for or residing with the child when an activity occurred. The special-expenditures provision covered costs directly associated with activities, such as registrations, uniforms, and equipment, but did not require Father to reimburse indirect travel costs such as flights, hotels, rental cars, or mileage.
The court also upheld the denial of contempt. Two physical-therapy bills were not included in the expense statement attached to Mother’s contempt motion, and Father lacked adequate notice that they were part of the contempt claim. Although Father admitted he had not specifically designated payments toward car insurance, the evidence showed that his aggregate payments exceeded the covered expenses by $93.05. The trial court therefore acted within its discretion in finding no violation and denying attorney fees.
The court rejected Mother’s remaining challenges. Her shared-parenting modification argument was moot because K.S. had turned 18, and Mother had not moved to terminate the plan. Competent evidence supported imputing full-time income to Mother, who supplied no medical evidence establishing an inability to work full time. Mother had expressly asked the trial court to use Father’s $96,032 income figure and therefore invited any alleged error. Ohio law also barred making the support modification effective before Mother filed her motion, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining an additional upward deviation.
Key Takeaways
- A shared-parenting plan requiring the parent caring for the child to provide transportation did not shift airfare, lodging, rental-car, or mileage costs to the other parent merely because an activity occurred during that other parent’s scheduled parenting time.
- Indirect contempt requires adequate notice of the specific alleged violations; bills omitted from the contempt motion’s supporting expense statement could not support contempt.
- A court may impute full-time income when testimony about medical and caregiving limitations is unsupported or found unpersuasive, and a child-support modification generally cannot predate notice of the motion to modify.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that Ohio courts will enforce the plain language of shared-parenting agreements even when the result places substantial activity-related travel costs on one parent. Parties who intend to share airfare, lodging, mileage, or similar expenses should identify those categories expressly rather than relying on general language or the agreement’s perceived spirit.
It also underscores the procedural precision required in post-decree litigation. A contempt movant must identify the particular unpaid obligations and provide adequate notice, while a party seeking reduced attributed income should present credible evidence—particularly medical documentation—showing that reduced employment reflects genuine limitations rather than voluntary underemployment.