J.E.S. v. A.S.

Support; spousal; child; impute income; minimum wage; voluntarily underemployed; abuse of discretion; R.C. 3105.18 factors; R.C. 3119.01 factors; pending appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court; mandate; subject-matter jurisdiction; S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.04(D). Judgment affirmed. The trial court had jurisdiction to proceed with the case following the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to decline Husband's jurisdictional appeal on May 27, 2025, and issue an amended judgment entry, two days later on May 29, 2025. S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.04(D) does not require a mandate as Husband contends. Therefore, May 27, 2025, the day the decision was issued, guides us. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing minimum wage income to Wife, declining to award spousal support, and ordering Husband to pay child support. Husband reargues the same facts and issues we considered in the previous appeal, referencing the gifts Wife received from B.T. (her father), her monthly expenses, and the money in B.T.'s trust account that Wife receives as a beneficiary. However, we found that the trial court's consideration of these gift was improper. As a result, the trial court and this court cannot consider B.T.'s gifts to Wife when determining Wife's income. When reviewing the other evidence in the record, it is clear that Wife did not have any source of income in her own name. The court found the testimony established that Wife is voluntarily underemployed based upon her education, work history, and potential employment. Notably, other than referring to the gifts Wife received from B.T., which we previously found was improper for the trial court to consider, Husband can point to no evidence of Wife's income. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion that Wife was voluntarily underemployed and imputing an annual minimum wage income of $22,256 was not an abuse of discretion.

Plain English (For Everyone)

A parent can't just decide to earn less money to avoid paying child support. A court can order you to pay based on what you *could* be earning if you've intentionally made yourself earn less, especially to make sure your child is taken care of. This is to ensure children receive the financial support they need, even if a parent tries to reduce their income.

For Legal Practitioners

This case reaffirms that trial courts have discretion to impute income in child support calculations when a parent voluntarily underemploys themselves. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, emphasizing that the imputation was based on earning potential, not actual income, to serve the child's best interest. Practitioners should be prepared to present evidence of voluntary underemployment and its impact on the child's needs.

For Law Students

This case tests the principle of imputing income in child support cases. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to impute income based on earning potential, not actual earnings, when a parent voluntarily reduces their income. This aligns with the doctrine that courts can deviate from actual income to ensure the child's best interests are met, raising issues of judicial discretion and the definition of 'voluntary' underemployment.

Newsroom Summary

An Ohio appeals court ruled that a father must pay child support based on his potential earnings, not just his current low income. The decision allows courts to impute income if a parent intentionally earns less, prioritizing the child's financial needs. This impacts parents seeking to modify support obligations.

Procedural Posture

This case comes before the appellate court on appeal from the trial court's decision modifying a shared parenting plan. The trial court, after a hearing, found that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred and modified the plan to grant primary residential responsibility to the father, A.S. The mother, J.E.S., appealed this decision.

Constitutional Issues

Due Process Rights of Parents in Custody ModificationsBest Interest of the Child Standard in Parenting Plan Modifications

Rule Statements

"A trial court does not abuse its discretion in modifying a shared parenting decree when the evidence presented demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances of the child or of one of the parents and that the modification is in the best interest of the child."

"The relocation of a parent, while potentially a substantial change in circumstances, does not automatically mandate a modification of a shared parenting plan; the court must still assess whether the relocation, in conjunction with other factors, impacts the child's best interest."

Remedies

Affirmation of the trial court's modification order.The trial court is ordered to continue to apply the best interest of the child standard in all future parenting plan determinations.

Scenario: You recently lost a higher-paying job and are now working a lower-paying one, but you believe you could find another job that pays more. Your ex-spouse is seeking a child support order based on your previous higher income.

Your Rights: You have the right to present evidence about your current employment situation and why you are earning less. However, the court may impute income based on your earning potential if it believes you voluntarily reduced your income or are not making a good faith effort to find comparable employment.

What To Do: If you are in this situation, be prepared to show the court documentation of your job search efforts, any reasons for the income reduction that were not voluntary (e.g., health issues, industry downturn), and why your current lower income is your actual income. If you are the parent seeking support, be prepared to argue that the other parent has voluntarily reduced their income and present evidence of their earning potential.

Is it legal for a court to order child support based on what I *could* earn, even if I'm currently earning less?

Yes, it can be legal. If a court finds that you have voluntarily reduced your income or are intentionally underemployed, it can impute income to you based on your earning potential to ensure your child's financial needs are met. This is to prevent parents from avoiding their support obligations by deliberately earning less.

This ruling is specific to Ohio law, but similar principles regarding voluntary underemployment and imputed income exist in many other U.S. jurisdictions.

For Parents involved in child support disputes

This ruling clarifies that parents cannot escape child support obligations by voluntarily taking lower-paying jobs. Courts have the authority to look at earning potential, not just current income, when determining support amounts. This means parents must demonstrate a genuine inability to earn more, rather than a choice to earn less.

For Family law attorneys

Attorneys representing parents in child support cases must be prepared to litigate issues of voluntary underemployment. Evidence of earning potential, job market conditions, and the parent's efforts to secure higher-paying employment will be crucial. This ruling reinforces the importance of thorough discovery regarding a parent's employment history and capabilities.

Child Support
Financial payments made by one parent to the other for the care and upbringing o... Imputed Income
Income that a court attributes to a party for child support purposes, even if th... Voluntary Underemployment
A situation where a person intentionally works in a job that pays less than they... Earning Potential
The amount of income a person is reasonably capable of earning based on their sk... Abuse of Discretion
A legal standard where a trial court's decision is found to be unreasonable, arb...

Q: What is J.E.S. v. A.S. about?

J.E.S. v. A.S. is a case decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on February 12, 2026.

Q: What court decided J.E.S. v. A.S.?

J.E.S. v. A.S. was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was J.E.S. v. A.S. decided?

J.E.S. v. A.S. was decided on February 12, 2026.

Q: Who were the judges in J.E.S. v. A.S.?

The judge in J.E.S. v. A.S.: Boyle.

Q: What is the citation for J.E.S. v. A.S.?

The citation for J.E.S. v. A.S. is 2026 Ohio 458. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and citation for this Ohio appellate decision?

The case is J.E.S. v. A.S., and it was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals. The specific citation would typically include the volume and page number of the reporter where the opinion is published, along with the year of decision.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the J.E.S. v. A.S. case?

The parties were J.E.S., the father, who appealed the child support order, and A.S., the mother, who was the recipient of the child support. The case concerns their child.

Q: What was the main issue J.E.S. appealed in the child support case?

J.E.S. appealed the trial court's decision to impute income to him for child support calculations. He argued that the court should have based the support on his actual, lower income rather than his earning potential.

Q: Which Ohio court decided J.E.S. v. A.S. and what was its ruling?

The Ohio Court of Appeals decided the case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the imputation of income to J.E.S. and finding no abuse of discretion.

Q: When was the J.E.S. v. A.S. decision issued?

The provided summary does not specify the exact date the Ohio Court of Appeals issued its decision in J.E.S. v. A.S. This information would be found in the full published opinion.

Q: Is J.E.S. v. A.S. published?

J.E.S. v. A.S. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in J.E.S. v. A.S.?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in J.E.S. v. A.S.. Key holdings: The court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by imputing income to a parent for child support purposes when that parent had voluntarily reduced their income, as this action was permissible under Ohio Revised Code Section 3119.05.; The court reasoned that imputing income is appropriate when a parent has the ability to earn more but has voluntarily become unemployed or underemployed, and the imputation serves the best interests of the child.; The court found that the father's voluntary reduction in income, evidenced by his resignation from a higher-paying job, justified the imputation of income based on his earning potential.; The court rejected the father's argument that income should only be imputed based on his actual income, stating that Ohio law allows for imputation based on earning capacity when circumstances warrant it.; The court affirmed the trial court's child support order, concluding that it was based on proper legal principles and supported by the evidence presented..

Q: Why is J.E.S. v. A.S. important?

J.E.S. v. A.S. has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the principle that parents cannot evade their child support obligations by voluntarily reducing their income. Courts have the authority to impute income based on earning potential when a parent's unemployment or underemployment is self-imposed, prioritizing the child's financial well-being.

Q: What precedent does J.E.S. v. A.S. set?

J.E.S. v. A.S. established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by imputing income to a parent for child support purposes when that parent had voluntarily reduced their income, as this action was permissible under Ohio Revised Code Section 3119.05. (2) The court reasoned that imputing income is appropriate when a parent has the ability to earn more but has voluntarily become unemployed or underemployed, and the imputation serves the best interests of the child. (3) The court found that the father's voluntary reduction in income, evidenced by his resignation from a higher-paying job, justified the imputation of income based on his earning potential. (4) The court rejected the father's argument that income should only be imputed based on his actual income, stating that Ohio law allows for imputation based on earning capacity when circumstances warrant it. (5) The court affirmed the trial court's child support order, concluding that it was based on proper legal principles and supported by the evidence presented.

Q: What are the key holdings in J.E.S. v. A.S.?

1. The court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by imputing income to a parent for child support purposes when that parent had voluntarily reduced their income, as this action was permissible under Ohio Revised Code Section 3119.05. 2. The court reasoned that imputing income is appropriate when a parent has the ability to earn more but has voluntarily become unemployed or underemployed, and the imputation serves the best interests of the child. 3. The court found that the father's voluntary reduction in income, evidenced by his resignation from a higher-paying job, justified the imputation of income based on his earning potential. 4. The court rejected the father's argument that income should only be imputed based on his actual income, stating that Ohio law allows for imputation based on earning capacity when circumstances warrant it. 5. The court affirmed the trial court's child support order, concluding that it was based on proper legal principles and supported by the evidence presented.

Q: What cases are related to J.E.S. v. A.S.?

Precedent cases cited or related to J.E.S. v. A.S.: State v. Johnson, 2014-Ohio-4740 (Ohio Ct. App.); In re Marriage of D.W. & K.W., 2011-Ohio-5441 (Ohio Ct. App.); Smith v. Smith, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2003-G-2520, 2004-Ohio-4060.

Q: What legal standard did the Ohio Court of Appeals apply when reviewing the trial court's decision?

The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion. This standard means the court looks to see if the trial court's judgment was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Q: Under what circumstances can a court impute income in Ohio child support cases?

In Ohio, a court can impute income to a parent if they are found to have voluntarily reduced their income or failed to pursue available employment opportunities. This is done to ensure the child support order reflects the parent's true ability to pay.

Q: What was the appellate court's reasoning for upholding the imputation of income to J.E.S.?

The court affirmed the imputation because it found that J.E.S. had voluntarily reduced his income. The court reasoned that imputing income was permissible under Ohio law to serve the child's best interests and ensure adequate support.

Q: Did the court consider J.E.S.'s actual income or his earning potential when imputing income?

The court imputed income based on J.E.S.'s earning potential, not his actual, voluntarily reduced income. This was permissible because the trial court determined he had the ability to earn more.

Q: What specific Ohio statute likely governs the imputation of income in this child support case?

While not explicitly stated in the summary, Ohio Revised Code Section 3119.05 likely governs the imputation of income in child support cases, allowing courts to consider earning potential when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Q: What does 'abuse of discretion' mean in the context of this appellate review?

An abuse of discretion means the trial court made a decision that was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. The appellate court found that the trial court's decision to impute income did not meet this high threshold for reversal.

Q: What is the 'best interests of the child' standard as it relates to child support?

The 'best interests of the child' standard in child support cases requires courts to ensure that financial orders adequately provide for the child's needs and well-being. Imputing income can be a tool to achieve this when a parent is not contributing to their full capacity.

Q: Does J.E.S. v. A.S. set a new precedent for child support calculations in Ohio?

The summary suggests J.E.S. v. A.S. affirmed existing principles regarding the imputation of income. It likely reinforces the precedent that courts can impute income based on earning potential if a parent voluntarily reduces their income, rather than establishing a new legal rule.

Q: How does J.E.S. v. A.S. affect me?

This case reinforces the principle that parents cannot evade their child support obligations by voluntarily reducing their income. Courts have the authority to impute income based on earning potential when a parent's unemployment or underemployment is self-imposed, prioritizing the child's financial well-being. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: How does this ruling impact parents who voluntarily reduce their income in Ohio?

This ruling impacts parents by making it clear that voluntarily reducing income will not necessarily lower their child support obligations. Courts can impute income based on earning potential, ensuring support orders reflect a parent's capacity to pay.

Q: Who is most affected by the J.E.S. v. A.S. decision?

The decision primarily affects parents who are subject to child support orders and have either voluntarily reduced their income or are underemployed. It also impacts the children who are the beneficiaries of these support orders.

Q: What are the potential compliance implications for parents after this ruling?

Parents must be aware that intentionally decreasing their income to avoid child support payments is unlikely to succeed. They should ensure their income reporting accurately reflects their earning capacity, not just their current, reduced earnings.

Q: Could this ruling affect business owners or self-employed individuals in Ohio regarding child support?

Yes, business owners and self-employed individuals could be affected. If they manipulate their reported income or take actions that artificially lower their earnings, a court may impute income based on their demonstrated earning potential.

Q: What is the practical advice for a parent facing a child support order where income imputation is considered?

A parent facing potential income imputation should consult with legal counsel to understand Ohio's laws on voluntary underemployment and present evidence of any legitimate reasons for reduced income, rather than simply relying on actual, lower earnings.

Q: How does the doctrine of imputing income in child support cases fit into the broader history of family law?

The doctrine of imputing income reflects an evolution in family law towards ensuring children's financial needs are met, even when parents attempt to shirk their responsibilities. It moves beyond simply looking at declared income to assessing true earning capacity.

Q: Are there landmark Ohio cases that established the principle of imputing income for child support?

While J.E.S. v. A.S. applies the principle, landmark cases like *Holcomb v. Holcomb* (1989) in Ohio have historically addressed the court's authority to consider earning capacity when determining child support, particularly in situations of voluntary unemployment.

Q: How has the legal approach to child support evolved to address parental non-compliance?

Historically, child support was often based strictly on declared income. The evolution, as seen in cases like J.E.S. v. A.S., includes judicial tools like income imputation to prevent parents from using voluntary actions to avoid their legal obligations.

Q: What was the docket number in J.E.S. v. A.S.?

The docket number for J.E.S. v. A.S. is 115183. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can J.E.S. v. A.S. be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did J.E.S. bring his case to the Ohio Court of Appeals?

J.E.S. appealed the trial court's child support order to the Ohio Court of Appeals. This is a standard procedural step when a party believes the trial court made a legal error.

Q: What specific procedural ruling was challenged by J.E.S. in his appeal?

J.E.S. challenged the trial court's procedural decision to impute income to him. He argued this imputation was an error of law or an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

Q: What is the role of the trial court versus the appellate court in a case like J.E.S. v. A.S.?

The trial court initially heard the evidence, made factual findings, and issued the child support order, including imputing income. The appellate court's role was to review the trial court's decision for legal errors or abuses of discretion, not to re-hear the case.

Q: If J.E.S. disagreed with the appellate court's decision, what further procedural steps could he take?

If J.E.S. believed the Ohio Court of Appeals erred, he could potentially seek further review by filing a motion to certify the record with the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing the case involves a question of public or great general interest.

Ohio Court of Appeals Opinions Child Support Imputation of IncomeVoluntary Underemployment in Child SupportParental Earning CapacityAbuse of Discretion in Family LawBest Interests of the Child Standard oh Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: Child Support Imputation of IncomeKnow Your Rights: Voluntary Underemployment in Child SupportKnow Your Rights: Parental Earning Capacity Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Child Support Imputation of Income GuideVoluntary Underemployment in Child Support Guide Voluntary Underemployment Doctrine (Legal Term)Best Interests of the Child (Legal Term)Abuse of Discretion Standard of Review (Legal Term)Statutory Interpretation (Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.05) (Legal Term) Child Support Imputation of Income Topic HubVoluntary Underemployment in Child Support Topic HubParental Earning Capacity Topic Hub