COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67962 : STATE OF OHIO, CUYAHOGA SUPPORT : ENFORCEMENT AGENCY EX REL., LINDA, : ACCELERATED DOCKET GRAHAM, : : JOURNAL ENTRY : Plaintiff-Appellant : AND : v. : OPINION : GEORGE GRAHAM, : PER CURIAM : : Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 22, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court -- Juvenile Court Division Case No. 9470997 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant, Sharon Hawk Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Assistant County Prosecutor Agency: P.O. Box 93894 Cleveland, Ohio 44101-5894 For plaintiff-appellant, Linda Graham, Pro Se Linda Graham: 1114 East 168th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44110 For defendant-appellee: George Graham, Pro Se 4826 East 138th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -3- PER CURIAM: Appellant the State of Ohio, Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA"), appeals the order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which approved the referee's report in this child support case. The referee recommended the father pay an amount of child support below the applicable amount stated in the child support schedule, the CSEA be dismissed as a party to the action it had filed, and the father "maintain" his children on the medical and health insurance plan provided by his employer. Assignment of error number one is sustained on the authority of Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139 since neither the trial court nor the referee provided any explanation on the worksheet to explain the deviation from the basic child support schedule provided in R.C. 3113.215. See, also, Tobens v. Brill (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 298; McClain v. McClain (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 856; Hockenberry v. Hockenberry (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 806. Assignment of error number two is sustained since this court has determined the CSEA's pecuniary interest in child support cases makes it a real party in interest. See Vance v. Banks (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 475. See, also, Crittendon v. Crittendon (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 484; R.C. 3111.07; R.C. 5107.07. Assignment of error number three is also sustained since the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 3113.217(C). Pursuant to the statute, it is clearly insufficient in framing a child support order for the trial court to merely -4- state that the father must "maintain" the current health and medical coverage for his children. The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. -5- This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee its 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. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE SARA J. HARPER, JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, 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 .