COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71888 IN THE MATTER OF: ANGELA BEASLEY: ACCELERATED DOCKET : : : [Defendant-appellee] : : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division, Case No. 9572086 JUDGMENT Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Brian P. Mooney, Esq. Martin J. Keenan, Assistant County Prosecutor 11510 Buckeye Road Cuyahoga County Child Support Cleveland, Ohio 44105 Enforcement Agency 1910 Carnegie Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -2- PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant LamarStewart appeals from the trial court order which continued his child support obligation with an additional charge for an outstanding arrearage. Appellant argues the trial court failed to consider his ordinary and necessary business expenditures in its computation of his income as required by R.C. 3113.215. A review of the App.R. 9(A) record on appeal compels affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. The record reflects that on May 30, 1995 a parent-child relationship between appellant and Lamar Stewart, Jr. was established pursuant to an order made by a hearing officer of the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency ( CSEA .) On July 21, 1995 an administrative hearing took place with regard to child support. The administrative hearing officer determined appellant earned $69,985 per year; this amount was based upon appellant's 1994 1099-MISC, a copy of which had been provided by appellant's employer, A-1 Bail Bonds. A child support worksheet also was completed and entered into the record. Under Income Adjustments, the line for Business Expenses showed an amount of 0. Pursuant to the guidelines, appellant was ordered to pay $684.58 per month for child support. The record reflects appellant filed no objections to the support order until September 6, 1995. At that time, he filed a pleading in the trial court he styled Application to Determine Child Support and Objections to Order of CSEA for Payment of -3- Support. Appellant attached his affidavit, in which he averred the child support guidelines were inaccurately computated (sic) because CSEA failed to adjust the gross income for ordinary and necessary business expenses. On October 27, 1995 CSEA filed its notice of appearance in the trial court and its answer to appellant's pleading. On November 15, 1995 Lamar Stewart, Jr.'s mother filed a motion to show cause, alleging appellant was in violation of the child support order. On December 14, 1995 a hearing was held before a magistrate, who determined appellant's challenge to the order was untimely; thus, appellant was ordered to comply. The mother's motion to show cause was deferred for further hearing. No transcript of this hearing before the magistrate is included in the record on appeal. On February 2, 1996 the trial court adopted the magistrate's determination. On July 26, 1996 while the mother's motion to show cause was still pending, appellant filed in the trial court a motion to modify child support. Appellant's motion and the mother's motion to show cause eventually were set for evidentiary hearing before the trial court on October 10, 1996. No transcript of the hearing is included in the App.R. 9(A) record on appeal. On December 11, 1996 the trial court rendered its decision, stating in its judgment entry that at the October 10, 1996 hearing on appellant's motion it proceeded to listen to the evidence, the testimony and the arguments of counsel. It further stated appellant's motion to modify child support was overruled. In this appeal, appellant again contends the trial court -4- failed to strictly comply with the mandates of R.C. 3113.215 in determining his child support obligation, arguing that it ignored his ordinary and necessary business expenses in computing his income. Appellant cites numerous cases in support of his contention, however, they remain unpersuasive, since the App.R.9(A) record submitted by appellant is insufficient to demonstrate the trial court's conclusions were not sufficiently based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. The original computation sheet complies with the requirements of R.C. 3113.215. Marker v. Grimm (1992) 65 Ohio St.3d 139. It sets forth appellant's gross pay with adjustments for taxes and F.I.C.A. Appellant does not argue he has encountered any change in his financial circumstances which would warrant deviation from the child support guidelines. Id.; see, also, Rock v. Cabral (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 108; McCoy v. McCoy (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 651; Baire v. Baire (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 50; cf., Woods v. Woods (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 222. Certainly, the trial court was entitled to lend little credence to a document which merely purports to be appellant's 1995 federal tax form and which is neither verified nor signed. R.C. 3113.215(B)(5)(a). Moreover, the trial court expressly stated it had considered the evidence before rendering its decision in this case. Mallinv. Mallin (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 717; cf., Houts v. Houts (1995) 99 Ohio App.3d 701. The presumption of validity which attends the proceedings -5- below thus mandates affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. Volodkevich v. Volodkevich (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 313; cf., Kamm v. Kamm(1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 174; Baus v. Baus (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 781. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Affirmed. -6- It is therefore considered that said appellee recover of said appellant 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 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Court Division, 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. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc. App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A) is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .