COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60889 NANCY C. RUTTI, ET AL. : : : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : BARRY L. BEAL, JR. : OPINION : : Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 30, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT CASE NO. 8670638 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BY: ANTHONY L. MANNING ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: JOSEPH BANCSI 19915 Lake Road Rocky River, Ohio 44116 -2- SPELLACY, J.: On April 24, 1986, plaintiff-appellant Nancy Rutti ("appellant") filed a complaint against defendant-appellee Barry L. Beal ("appellee") in the Juvenile Court of Cuyahoga County. Appellant sought to establish that appellee was the natural father of her daughter Joyce Denise Casey. After genetic testing found "no exclusion" for appellee, he admitted to being the father of Joyce Denise Casey on March 30, 1987. As a result of his admittance, it was ruled that he was the child's natural father. Subsequently, appellee was ordered to pay $100.00 per month in child support. On March 20, 1990, appellant filed a motion to modify appellee's child support obligation. Appellant requested the trial court to increase the amount of child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. On August 28, 1990, a hearing concerning appellant's motion to modify was conducted before a referee for the Juvenile Court of Cuyahoga County. Both parties were present with counsel and both parties testified. Also on August 28, 1990, the referee filed his report. The referee prepared a Child Support Guideline work sheet after considering the respective parties' financial situations. He determined that based upon the Child Support Guidelines, appellee would be required to pay $321.00 per month for child support. However, the referee found that such amount was "unjust and inappropriate in this case." -3- The referee went on to find that no evidence was presented to demonstrate how the minor child would benefit from a child support order consistent with the Child Support Guidelines. The referee reasoned that if appellee was required to pay $321.00 per month, appellant might lose her A.D.C. benefits, food stamps, and any medical insurance coverage for the minor child. Further, if appellee was required to pay said amount, neither he nor appellant would be able to provide medical insurance coverage for 1 the minor child. The referee concluded that the circumstances of this case revealed that it was not in the best interest of the child to order appellee to pay $321.00 per month. Thus, he recommended that appellee's child support obligation be increased to $170.00 per month. On September 11, 1990, appellant filed her objections to the report of the referee. On October 19, 1990, the trial court overruled appellant's objections and approved the referee's report. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and subsequently raised the following assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT APPROVED OVER THE OBJECTION OF APPELLANT THE REPORT OF THE REFEREE ORDERING AN INCREASE IN CHILD SUPPORT IN AN AMOUNT THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 3113.215 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE AND 1 In his analysis, the referee considered appellee's annual income and the fact that he had a wife and two other children, to whom he could not financially provide medical or health insurance. -4- AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. In her sole assignment of error, appellant basically contends that the trial court erred in deviating from the Child Support Guidelines. R.C. 3113.215 codified the Ohio Supreme Court's Child Support Guidelines. R.C. 3113.215(B)(1) creates a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated under the guidelines is the correct amount. In order for a trial court to deviate from the child support calculated pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, R.C. 3113.215(B)(1) and (B)(2) require it to enter in its journal entry the determination that the calculated support would be unjust or inappropriate and would not be in the best interest of the child. State ex rel. Schoenberger v. Miller (June 12, 1991), Medina App. No. 1966, unreported. The trial court must also journalize its findings of fact supporting those documentations. Id. It is within the discretion of the trial court to deviate from the Child Support Guidelines if it substantiates its decision by stating its findings of fact. Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 142. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies an attitude which is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 219. -5- In the instant case, the trial court adopted the referee's finding that if appellee was required to pay the Child Support Guidelines amount of $321.00 per month, appellant would "probably" lose her A.D.C. benefits, leaving the minor child without adequate or even minimal medical and health insurance. Apparently, the referee concluded that it was in the best interest of the child to have appellant continue with A.D.C. benefits as opposed to appellee paying child support in the amount of the guidelines. The referee assumed that appellant would lose her A.D.C. benefits and medical coverage for the child. We find that the trial court's adoption of the referee's report was arbitrary and unreasonable. We cannot find anything in the record that affirmatively shows that appellant would lose her A.D.C. benefits and medical coverage for the child, if appellee was required to pay $321.00 per month. Clearly, the trial court adopted an assumption made by the referee. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the referee's report. We conclude that this case should be remanded for further determination of the proper amount of child support. Appellant's assignment of error is well taken and is sustained. Trial court judgment is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Trial court judgment is reversed and remanded. -6- This cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Journal Entry and Opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant(s) recover of said appellee(s) his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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. Exceptions. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCURS; (See Concurring Opinion Attached.) NAHRA, P.J., CONCURS WITH CONCURRING OPINION. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60889 NANCY C. RUTTI, ET AL. : : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT : C O N C U R R I N G : vs. : O P I N I O N : BARRY L. BEAL, JR. : : : : DEFENDANT-APPELLEE : DATE: JULY 20, 1992 JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCURRING: While concurring with the majority, I nonetheless find it necessary to point out that the trial court was mandated to consider the health care needs of this child. R.C. 3113.215(B)(3) states that the trial court may deviate from the support guidelines. In determining whether the amount of support specified in the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate and not in the best interests of the child, the court should consider certain criteria. In listing the factors and criteria to be considered, R.C. 3113.215(B)(3)(j) references R.C. 3109.05. In R.C. 3109.05 the legislature required the court to include in each support order provisions for health care coverage of the child. - 2 - In the case sub judice, the court did not err when it attempted to ensure that this child's health care needs were met. The error occurred when a decision was arrived at without requisite evidence being presented, demonstrating the child's best interests would not be met by strictly imposing the support guidelines. .