The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a child support ruling in the case of Lopez v. Lopez, affecting Amber and Eulogio Lopez. The court found errors in how the trial court calculated child support payments, which are crucial for the welfare of their three children. This decision underscores the importance of proper legal procedures in family law cases.
In this case, Eulogio Lopez, the appellant, challenged a November 21, 2025, ruling from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas regarding child support payments. The court's decision to increase his monthly payments from $929.22 to $1,475.21 raised concerns about the accuracy of income calculations and the fairness of the support amount. The ruling is significant as it affects the financial obligations of parents and the well-being of their children.
Amber Lopez and Eulogio Lopez were married in 2012 and divorced in 2019. During their marriage, they had three children. Following their divorce, Amber was designated the residential parent, and Eulogio was ordered to pay $210.27 per month in child support based on their incomes at that time. Over the years, Eulogio's income increased significantly after completing graduate school, prompting a review of child support payments.
In January 2024, the Lucas County Child Support Enforcement Agency (LCCSEA) conducted an administrative review and found that Eulogio's income had risen to $51,622, while Amber's income was $33,280. As a result, LCCSEA adjusted his child support payments to $1,028.20 per month. Eulogio contested this amount, leading to a hearing before a magistrate in September 2024.
The magistrate's decision maintained the equal parenting time arrangement but adjusted Eulogio's child support payments to $929.22 per month, based on updated income figures. Amber then filed objections to this decision, arguing that the magistrate had erred in calculating the downward deviation from the guideline child support amount.
The trial court, however, issued a ruling that increased Eulogio's payments to $1,475.21 per month, citing Amber's income as $18,460 instead of the magistrate's figure of $24,059. Eulogio appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court had made factual findings without a transcript and had not properly considered the original child support arrangement.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Thomas J. Osowik, reviewed the case and found that the trial court had abused its discretion. The court emphasized that without a transcript, the trial court was required to accept the magistrate's factual findings. The appellate court stated, "By finding that the Magistrate erred in its calculation of appellee’s income and replacing that calculation with its own without a transcript or evidence in the record of appellee’s 2024 income, the trial court abused its discretion."
The court also noted that the trial court had failed to adhere to proper legal standards in determining child support deviations. The appellate ruling highlighted that deviations from the guideline amount must be justified with specific findings of fact, which the trial court did not provide.
This ruling has significant implications for future child support cases in Ohio. It reinforces the necessity for courts to follow established legal procedures and ensures that parents are treated fairly in child support determinations. The decision may also serve as a precedent for similar cases involving disputes over child support adjustments.
Moving forward, Eulogio Lopez's child support obligation will revert to the amount determined by the magistrate, pending further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's ruling. The case underscores the importance of accurate income reporting and adherence to legal standards in family law.
As for what’s next, the case may be subject to further legal proceedings in the lower court to determine the appropriate child support amount based on the appellate court's guidance. There are no indications of a related case pending at this time.