In re J.M.

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 1455

Syllabus

Child support; modification; change in circumstance; abuse of discretion; discovery; deemed admitted; Civ.R. 36; challenge to the truth; sanctions; Civ.R. 37; retroactive date. Judgment affirmed. Mother's challenge to the truth of Father's admissions during the pretrial proceedings and both Father and Mother's acquiescence to the court's resolution to the discovery issue effectively served as a motion to withdraw the admissions under Civ.R. 36(A). Moreover, it was within the court's discretion to permit the withdrawal in order to resolve the action on its merits, which did not operate to Father's prejudice. The court did not abuse its discretion by not imposing sanctions because the court addressed the discovery issues and Father never filed a motion to compel. The court also did not abuse its discretion in imputing Mother's income at minimum wage and finding Father's income at $0. Father did not put forth any credible evidence to demonstrate why the court's income calculations are unjust or inappropriate. In addition, without any evidence to substantiate Mother's lack of 90 overnights per year, we cannot find that the court abused its discretion by including a ten percent credit for Mother in the child support calculation. Lastly, the court did not abuse its discretion in applying the increase in child support retroactive to the trial date.