Skip to main content

Bruns v. Green

Ohio Ct. App.June 11, 2019No. 18AP-259Cited 6 times
Defendant WinGreen
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Sadler
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate the shared parenting plan and designate the mother (appellee) as sole legal custodian and residential parent, rejecting the father's (appellant's) appeals on both the custody modification and child support calculation issues.

Excerpt

Appellant did not demonstrate the trial court erred in designating the mother as legal custodian and residential guardian of a minor child without determining a change of circumstances occurred under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) since, at the request of both parties, the trial court terminated the prior shared parenting decree and plan pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c). The trial court did not commit reversible error under R.C. 3119.01 in basing its child support calculations on appellant's prior employment where, pursuant to Dach v. Homewood, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-502, 2015-Ohio-4191, the record contained evidence to support a finding appellant was voluntarily underemployed. Judgment affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved a custody and child support dispute between divorced parents, with the father (Bruns) appealing a trial court's decision. The father challenged the court's ruling that gave the mother sole custody of their child and terminated their previous shared parenting arrangement. He also disputed how the court calculated his child support payments, which were based on his previous employment income. **What the court decided:** The appellate court sided with the mother and upheld the trial court's decision. The court ruled that since both parents had originally requested to end their shared parenting plan, the trial court was allowed to give the mother full custody without needing to prove that circumstances had significantly changed. The court also found no error in how child support was calculated using the father's prior employment earnings. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling shows that past employment income can be used to determine child support obligations, even if your current work situation has changed. Workers going through divorce should understand that courts may base support calculations on previous earnings rather than current income. If you're facing custody issues while dealing with employment changes, it's important to properly document your current financial situation and work status for court proceedings.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.