 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinney v. Kinney6/14/2005
o those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm." Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199. We are therefore unable to find error as alleged by appellant upon the record before us with respect to the trial court's grant of custody to appellee, and appellant's first four assignments of error are overruled.
{ } Turning to appellant's fifth assignment of error, the same difficulty presents itself in finding error on the part of the trial court in computing child support obligations.
Some documentary evidence does exist in the limited record before us to support appellant's contention that her income was overstated in the child support worksheet, which reflects a yearly income of $32,240 rather than appellant's claimed income of $22,320. A domestic investigation report ordered by the magistrate in the case corroborates the lower figure. Of itself, however, this is not sufficient to find that the trial court's determination of income to be used in the child support computations is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We are unable to ascertain what other evidence might have been presented at the hearing to establish the parties' respective incomes; we further note that the child support worksheet also diverges significantly from the documentary evidence with respect to appellee's annual income as well. In the absence of a transcript, we are simply unable to venture into any speculative determination as to the correct amounts to be used in the child support worksheets for either parent's income, and errors in this respect, if any, must be resolved in post-judgment proceedings before the trial court. Appellant's fifth assignment of error is accordingly overruled.
{ } In accordance with the foregoing, appellant's five assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER and McGRATH, JJ., concur.
DESHLER, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under the authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
|