Child Support Affirmed, Case No. 2025 CA 0102

Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 15, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Back v. Taulbee

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1375
• Docket Number: 2025 CA 0102

• Judges: Hoffman

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Trial Court did not violate Ohio Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2.2 or 2.6 (A) - Child Support Enforcement Agency Attorney did not violate Ohio Administrative Code 5101:12-45-05.2(D)

Combined Opinion

                        by [William Hoffman](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8104/william-hoffman/)

[Cite as Back v. Taulbee, 2026-Ohio-1375.]

IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

HEIDI C. BACK Case No. 2025 CA 0102

Plaintiff - Appellant Opinion and Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2010 PAT 0026
SHAWN TAULBEE
Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellee
Date of Judgment Entry: April 15, 2026

BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; Craig R. Baldwin, Judges

APPEARANCES: Heidi C. Back, Pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant; Shawn Taulbee, Pro
se, for Defendant-Appellee.

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Heidi Back appeals the October 31, 2025 Judgment

Entry entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations

Division, which denied her objections to the magistrate’s July 29, 2025 decision, and

approved and adopted said decision as order of the court. Defendant-appellee is Shawn

Taulbee.1

1 Appellee has not filed a Brief in this matter.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} Appellant and Appellee are the natural parents of two minor children

(“Child 1” and “Child 2,” individually; “the Children,” collectively). The parties were never

married. Paternity was established for Child 1 on January 1, 2010, and for Child 2 on May

7, 2012. The Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granted legal

custody of the Children to Appellee via separate judgment entries filed July 30, 2024.

{¶3} On February 13, 2025, Richland County Child Support Enforcement Agency

(“CSEA”), on behalf of Appellee, filed a motion to establish child support and/or medical

order. The motion came on for hearing before the magistrate on July 24, 2025.

{¶4} Appellant and Appellee both appeared pro se. After some preliminary

discussions with Appellant regarding a matter in juvenile court, the trial court indicated,

“I’m going to ask both of you [Appellant and Appellee], because we are going to conduct

a hearing real quick, I’m going to ask both of you to stand, face the bailiff and be sworn in

and take some brief testimony.” Transcript of July 24, 2025 Child Support Hearing at

p.4. The parties were sworn in and the hearing commenced.

{¶5} CSEA Attorney Kelly Lucas detailed the proposed child support order.

Attorney Lucas indicated Appellant was the obligor and Appellee was the obligee. CSEA

imputed Appellant’s annual income at minimum wage on the Child Support Computation

Worksheet, and determined she should pay $91.98/month/child for child support plus

$16.60/month/child for medical support. Appellee would receive the dependent child tax

exemption for the Children. Attorney Lucas noted Appellant was not employed and CSEA

requested the issuance of a seek work order. Appellee acknowledged his understanding

of and agreed to the proposal. Appellant noted her understanding, but indicated she was

unable to agree.
{¶6} Attorney Lucas asked Appellant to explain her disagreement. Appellant

replied:

I would not be able to come up with $221 a month.

In addition, I would like to ask about those child tax credits. Up to

this point I would have been able to claim both children.

Id. at pp. 6-7.

{¶7} The trial court stated, “Let’s take one step at a time here.” Id. at p. 7. After

a brief exchange with Appellant, who presented an alternative offer, the trial court

responded:

[T]his isn’t really the place for negotiations, if there is some type of

negotiations I’m happy to allow you to have time to do that, but at this point

we are having a hearing and either there is an agreement, which you are not

required to reach an agreement on what this is. If you are not in agreement,

then the Court is just going to hear testimony from both of you and make its

own determination as to what the order should be if that makes sense.

Id. at p. 8.

{¶8} Appellant advised the trial court she wished to present evidence in support

of her position. Appellant stated she had her tax returns from the last three years.

Appellant explained she had “been in an extremely emotional state” and had “been

completely unable to work,” adding she had not “worked in over a year” and had not
“worked in two years.” Id. at p. 8. Appellant asked the trial court to adjust the amount of

her child support obligation, concluding, “I really can’t afford to pay.” Id. at p. 9. Attorney

Lucas replied, “And ma’am – I’m sorry.” Id. The trial court instructed Attorney Lucas to

proceed with cross-examination. On cross-examination, Appellant testified she was not

currently under a doctor’s care. Appellant has two other children who were not subject

to the instant matter. Appellant also admitted her mother supports her financially.

{¶9} At the end of the cross-examination, the trial court asked, “Is there anything

else you want the Court to know before the Court takes this under advisement and issues

a written decision?” Id. at p. 11. Appellant answered, “Thank you. I don’t think there is

anything I haven’t included in the objection that I filed, Your Honor.” Id.

{¶10} In his decision filed July 29, 2025, the magistrate designated Appellant as

the child support obligor and ordered her to pay child support in the amount of

$221.50/month. Appellant timely objected to the magistrate’s decision. Therein,

Appellant asserted the Child Support Computation Worksheet upon which the magistrate

relied did “not accurately reflect facts in this case, as [Appellant] is not employed and

cannot be employed for 40 hours a week due to [her] health issues and lack of available

childcare [for her two other children].” August 12, 2025 Objection to Magistrate’s

Decision at p. 1. In support of her objection, Appellant attached a copy of a turbo tax

summary, which reflected the amount of her federal and state income tax refunds, but not

the tax year; and a letter of support from her ex-husband.

{¶11} Appellant filed amended objections to the magistrate’s decision on

September 26, 2025, which was identical to her August 12, 2025 Objection, except for the

addition of the following:
Lastly, Richland County Child Support Enforcement Agency * * * has

sent [Appellant] a letter * * * regarding action being taken against

[Appellant] for back support, and the Orders of this Court are not finalized.

[Appellant] requests relief from preemptive action and reprimand of

RCCSEA for failure to recognize the stay of this case during an objection.

September 26, 2025 Amended Objection to Magistrate’s Decision at

p. 2, unpaginated.

{¶12} In support of her amended objection, Appellant again attached a copy of a

turbo tax summary, which reflected the amount of her federal and state income tax

refunds, but not the tax year; a letter of support from her ex-husband; and a Notice of

Obligor of Default and Potential Action dated September 16, 2025, which showed she was

in default of her support order and owed $1,445.50, in arrearages.

{¶13} Via Judgment Entry filed October 31, 2025, the trial court denied

Appellant’s objections, and approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision as order of

the court. The trial court found:

[Appellant] has not argued and has not demonstrated that she could

not, with reasonable diligence, have produced certain evidence to the

magistrate at the final hearing. The evidence attached to her objections

could have been submitted at the final hearing held on July 24, 2025. The

parties were afforded the opportunity to fully present the matter for

hearing.

October 31, 2025 Judgment Entry at p. 2.
{¶14} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals, setting forth the following

statement as her assignment of error:

THE TRIAL COURT FALSELY CLAIMED THAT APPELLANT HAD

AMPLE TIME TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT

ENTRY. THE HEARING HELD ON JULY 24, 2025 WAS RUSHED.

APPELLANT ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE, BUT WAS

INTERRUPTED BY MS. LUCAS, THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR

RICHLAND COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

(HEREIN AFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS RCCSEA).

MAGISTRATE BRIAN KELLOGG THEN MOVED ON AS A RESULT OF

THE INTERRUPTION, TWO PLAIN ERRORS.

I

{¶15} In her sole assignment of error, Appellant essentially contends the trial

court erred by permitting CSEA Attorney Kelly Lucas to prevent Appellant from

introducing evidence and to interrupt Appellant when she was testifying. Appellant

submits the trial court violated Ohio Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2.2 and 2.6(A), and CSEA

Attorney Kelly Lucas violated Ohio Administrative Code 5101:12-45-05.2(D).

{¶16} Jud.Cond.R. 2.2 mandates “[a] judge shall uphold and apply the law, and

shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” (Emphasis in original.)

Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(A) requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in
a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.” (Emphasis

in original.).

{¶17} Ohio Admin. Code 5101:12-45-05.2(D) provides:

(D) The child support enforcement agency (CSEA) shall allow each

person to present evidence proving or disproving verifications and

allegations of earnings, income, wages, or assets and any other information

that may be used to establish the amount a parent should pay for support.

{¶18} In support of her assertions, Appellant points to three instances during the

hearing which she maintains resulted in her not being afforded a full opportunity to be

heard. First, Appellant takes issue with the trial court’s statement: “I’m going to ask both

of you [to be sworn in], because we are going to conduct a hearing real quick.” Transcript

of July 24, 2025 Child Support Hearing at p. 4. The second instance is when the trial court

stated, “Let’s take one step at a time here.” Id. at p. 7. Finally, while Appellant was

explaining to the trial court why she was unable to pay child support and expressed her

wish to present evidence in support, Attorney Lucas interrupted, commenting, “And

ma’am – I’m sorry.” Id. at p. 9. Thereafter, the trial court instructed Attorney Lucas to

proceed with cross-examination.

{¶19} We find Appellant was not prevented from presenting any evidence. At the

end of her cross-examination, the trial court specifically asked Appellant, “Is there

anything else you want the Court to know before the Court takes this under advisement

and issues a written decision?” Id. at p. 11. Appellant answered, “Thank you. I don’t think

there is anything I haven’t included in the objection that I filed, Your Honor.” Id.
Appellant was given the opportunity to fully present her position, but she chose not to do

so.2

{¶20} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

{¶21} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

{¶22} Costs to Appellant.

By: Hoffman, J.

King, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.

2 We find the record does not support Appellant’s claim the trial court judge violated the Code of Judicial

Conduct nor that CSEA violated the Ohio Administrative Code.