COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59460 TINA MARIE CARUSO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION ROBERT EDMOND ZYWICKA : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : NOVEMBER 21, 1991 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 8971083 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: PAMELA J. MacADAMS, ESQ. L. RAY JONES, ESQ. MORGANSTERN & MacADAMS CO. P.O. Box 592 1405 W. Sixth St., Suite 400 Medina, OH 44258 Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, J., This is an appeal from the order of the trial court which awarded child support including an amount for past care. For the reasons which follow the trial court's award is affirmed. On April 27, 1989, plaintiff-appellees Tina Caruso and her minor son, Salvatore Caruso, filed a complaint to establish paternity against defendant-appellant, Robert Zywicka. In his answer appellant denied the allegations of paternity. However, following genetic testing appellant withdrew his denial and admitted paternity at a hearing conducted before a referee on December 14, 1989. Subsequent to the hearing the referee issued a report which was filed on December 21, 1989. The referee recommended that the appellant pay $92.00 per week in child support. Further, the referee found the appellant owed a total of $4,000 for past care. The appellant filed objections to the referee's report, which were overruled. On February 6, 1990, the trial judge approved the referee's report and recommendations. From this order appellant timely appeals. I. Appellant's assignment of error alleges the trial court erred in adopting the referee's recommendations regarding the amount of child support and the amounts found due for past care. Specifically, appellant maintains the trial court impermissibly deviated from the child support guidelines in assessing $92.00 per week child support. Appellant also maintains there is - 3 - insufficient information in the referee's report to justify the $4,000 award for past care. R.C. 3111.13(E) authorizes a juvenile court to award the custodial parent of an illegitimate child a sum of child support. It provides: (E) In determining the amount to be paid by a parent for support of the child and the period during which the duty of support is owed, a court enforcing the obligation of support shall base the judgment or order of support upon the financial status of the parents and the father's ability to pay support, and shall consider all relevant facts, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (1) The needs of the child; (2) The standard of living and circum- stances of the parents; (3) The relative financial means of the parents; (4) The earning ability of the parents; (5) The need and capacity of the child for education; (6) The age of the child; (7) The financial resources and the earning ability of the child; (8) The responsibility of the parents for the support of others; (9) The value of services contributed by the custodial parent. This statute recognizes the right of children to paternal support and serves to compel the putative father to share the - 4 - expenses of child birth and child support. See Wright v. Oliver (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d 10, 11. Moreover, in order for a reviewing court to overturn a child support award, it must find that the trial court abused its discretion. Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 142. An abuse of discretion implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable arbitrary or unconscionable. See, e.g., Blakemore v Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217. Appellant argues he should be paying $63.32 per week child support rather than the $92.00 per week ordered by the trial court. However, appellant's figure incorrectly omits the work- related child care expense which is factored in at line 16 of the child support guideline worksheet. Review of the child support guideline worksheet contained in the record indicates the referee properly factored in appellee's work-related child care expense which was reduced by her tax credit; added that sum to the scheduled support obligation; assessed appellant his pro-rata percentage thereof; and arrived at the proper guideline figure of $92.00 per week. After reviewing the referee's report together with the child support guideline worksheet, we conclude the trial court and referee arrived at the correct figure of $92.00 per week child support. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion therein. Next, appellant argues there is an insufficient basis for the court's order requiring the appellant to pay the sum of - 5 - $4,000 for past care. However, the referee's report includes the finding that the child was born on March 5, 1989 which was approximately forty-one weeks prior to the date of December 15, 1989, the date on which the initial current support obligation became due. If one applies the current support obligation of $92.00 to these preceding forty-one weeks one arrives at the figure of $3,772.00. Absent from this figure is the appellant's share of birth costs. In light of the above, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding appellees the sum of $4,000 for past care. It is not unreasonable to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the current support obligation of $92.00 per week may be retroactively applied to the weeks preceding the determination of that award, wherein as here, paternity proceedings are begun less than two months after a child's birth and the initial current support obligation becomes due approximately forty-one weeks after the child's birth. Moreover, the excess $228.00 sum may reasonably be attributed to birth costs. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the trial court's approval of the referee's report and recommendation was not "unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable" so as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Booth, supra. - 6 - Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. ANN McMANAMON, P.J. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .