[Cite as In re J.C., 2025-Ohio-4753.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE J.C., ET AL. :
Nos. 114694 and 114711
Minor Children :
[Appeal by S.Y.C., Mother] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 16, 2025
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Juvenile Division
Case Nos. CU16101850 and CU16101851
Appearances:
P. Shipman Law, LLC, and Philip E. Shipman, for
appellant.
Hans C. Kuenzi, Co., L.P.A., and Hans C. Kuenzi, for
appellee.
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:
This appeal is relative to proceedings involving appellant S.Y.C.
(Mother) and appellee J.V.C. (Father), who were never married. They have two
children: J.C. and G.C. The cases involving each child have been consolidated for
review and disposition.
In December 2009, Father was designated the residential parent and
legal custodian of the children. Since that time, the parties have ceaselessly fought
over custody, child support, and visitation issues regarding the children in two
county court systems.1 Mother has also filed an unsuccessful federal court action.
She has filed meritless affidavits seeking to disqualify the trial judges in both
counties.2 Finally, Mother has filed several petitions for extraordinary writs in both
counties.3
In May 2023, the court issued two orders disposing of various
motions. On May 11, 2023, the juvenile court ordered that Mother pay child support
in the amount of $80.00 per child and $242.75 total per month for cash medical
support. Specifically, the order stated that Mother “shall pay child support in the
amount of $80.00 per month per child (including $242.75 per month for cash
1 See [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 2010-Ohio-5401 (11th Dist.); [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 2012-Ohio-2242 (11th Dist.); [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 2012-Ohio-4338 (11th Dist.); [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 2013-Ohio-2042 (11th Dist.); [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 2014-Ohio-2454 (11th Dist.); In re J.C., 2019-Ohio-107 (8th Dist.); In re G.C., 2021-Ohio-2442 (8th Dist.); In re J.C., 2021-Ohio-2450 (8th Dist.); In re J.C., 2021-Ohio-2451 (8th Dist.); In re J.C., 2022-Ohio3326 (8th Dist.); In re J.C., 2024-Ohio-343 (8th Dist.).
2 See [S.Y.C. v. J.V.C.], 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131196 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2011);
J.C. v. S.C. (In re Lawson), 2012-Ohio-6337; In re Disqualification of Floyd, 2021-Ohio2820; In re Disqualification of Floyd, 2022-Ohio-919; In re Disqualification of Floyd, Supreme Court Case No. 23-AP-120 (Oct. 6, 2023).
3 See [S.Y.C.] v. Lawson, 2012-Ohio-5831 (11th Dist.); State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd,
2018-Ohio-2743 (8th Dist.); State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2020-Ohio-5189 (8th Dist.); State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2021-Ohio-3467 (8th Dist.); State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2023-Ohio-2395 (8th Dist.), aff’d, 2024-Ohio-1387.
medical support for both children) per month + 2 percent processing fee for a total
of $81.60 to OCSS.”4 Neither party appealed the court’s May 11, 2023 order.
On May 22, 2023, the trial court issued orders denying Mother’s
motions to hold Father in contempt. Mother appealed the court’s May 22, 2023
decisions, which this court dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. In re J.C.,
2024-Ohio-343 (8th Dist.).
On July 9, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on several motions. On
December 2, 2024, the trial court entered orders granting Father’s motion to clarify
parenting and vacation time and denying Mother’s motion to strike Father’s motion
to clarify and motion to stop cash medical payments.
This appeal followed.
Mother raises 12 assignments of error. The assignments of error are
listed in the attached appendix and will be combined when possible for review.
Cash Medical Support
The first eight assignments of error involve the trial court’s denial of
Mother’s motion to stop cash medical payments.
“‘A trial court’s decision regarding child support obligations falls
within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of
an abuse of discretion.’” In re J.C., 2022-Ohio-3326, at ¶ 82 (8th Dist.), quoting
J.E.M. v. D.N.M., 2021-Ohio-67, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio
4 Office of Child Support Services
St.3d 142 (1989). “The trial court has considerable discretion in child support
matters; absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a child support order.”
In re J.C., 2022-Ohio-3326, at id., citing J.E.M. at id., citing Pauly v. Pauly, 80 Ohio
St.3d 386, 390 (1997).
R.C. 3119.30(C) provides:
When a child support order is issued or modified, the order shall
include a cash medical support amount consistent with division (B) of
section 3119.302 of the Revised Code for each child subject to the order.
The cash medical support amount shall be ordered based on the
number of children subject to the order and split between the parties
using the parents’ income share.
On May 11, 2023, the juvenile court issued orders as to both children
regarding child support, including cash medical support. In those orders, the court
found that Mother was the obligor and Father was the obligee. The court
determined a deviation as to child support should be made and ordered child
support in the amount $80.00 per month per child effective May 7, 2021. The court
further found the Mother was obligated to pay cash medical support totaling
$242.75 per month. Based on this amount, the court determined in its December 2,
2024 order that Father had received overpayment in the amount of $4,673.51 for
J.C. and $4,181.18 for G.C. and owed those amounts to Mother.
Mother contends that the plain language of the court’s May 11, 2023
orders were that Mother was only obligated to pay $80.00 per month per child, plus
a processing fee, for a total of $81.60 per month per child. Therefore, according to
Mother, the trial court erred in its December 2, 2024 orders when it stated that Mother was obligated to pay cash medical support in the amount of $242.75 per
month. Thus, according to Mother, the court’s December 2, 2024 orders should be
vacated and remanded to the juvenile court for the court to recalculate the
overpayment of Mother’s child support using $0.00 as the amount of cash medical
support.
“Cash medical support” is an amount ordered to be paid in a childsupport order toward the ordinary medical expenses of a child incurred during a
calendar year. R.C. 3119.01(C)(2). The trial court’s May 11, 2023 orders stated that
Mother “shall pay child support in the amount of $80.00 per month per child
(including $242.75 per month for cash medical support for both children) per
month + 2 percent processing fee for a total of $81.60 to OCSS . . . .” The child
support worksheet attached to the entries for each child stated that the cash medical
support per month was $242.75. The record reflects that OCSS began to withhold
that amount from Mother’s paychecks after the orders were issued.
In In re J.C., 2022-Ohio-3326, at ¶ 88 (8th Dist.), this court found
that the trial court incorrectly determined the amount of child support Mother was
to pay to Father, finding that “[t]he trial court failed to address the disparity between
Father’s and Mother’s income and also failed to determine the child support
obligation using the correct standard.” This court remanded the case to the juvenile
court to determine the amount of child-support obligation using the correct
standard.
On remand, the juvenile court determined that a deviation in child
support was necessary and reduced Mother’s obligation from $1,437.33 per month
per child to $80.00 per month per child. (May 11, 2023 judgment entries.) The
court made no deviation as to the cash medical support.
Although the trial court’s May 11, 2023 orders could have been more
clearly set forth, the orders provided that Mother was to pay $80.00 in child
support, plus a two percent processing fee, per month, per child. In addition,
Mother was ordered to pay a $242.75 in cash medical support, plus a two percent
processing fee. In case Mother had any doubts about what she owed, the child
support worksheet attached to the orders also indicated that Mother was obligated
to pay $242.75 in cash medical support for the children.
Although Mother is arguing that the trial court incorrectly calculated
the amount of repayment she owed, her claim stems solely from the court’s May 11,
2023 orders determining the amount of cash medical support. In other words,
Mother does not argue that the office of child support services or the trial court
incorrectly calculated the overpayment.
Although Mother now challenges the amount of cash medical
support, she had the opportunity to challenge the amount when it was first ordered
through the filing of a direct appeal. She did not.
The record reflects that Mother is attempting to bootstrap this appeal
by challenging the juvenile court’s December 2, 2024 denial of Mother’s motion to
stop cash medical payments.
“‘Bootstrapping’ is ‘the utilization of a subsequent order to indirectly
and untimely appeal a prior order that was never directly appealed.’
State v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102320, 2015-Ohio-5135,
¶ 9. Such attempt is ‘procedurally anomalous and inconsistent with the
appellate rules that contemplate a direct relationship between the
order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result
of that order’ and is disfavored.” Williamson, citing State v. Church,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68590, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4838 (Nov. 2,
1995).
State v. Streets, 2025-Ohio-2598, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.), quoting Cleveland v. Sabetta,
2021-Ohio-4426, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.).
In Streets, the appellant pleaded guilty to sexual imposition, was
sentenced to a suspended sentence, and was placed on community-control
sanctions, which included participation in a pilot program. The appellant’s
electronic devices were subject to monitoring as part of the pilot program. The
appellant did not file a direct appeal but later filed a motion to modify the conditions
of his probation to eliminate the monitoring of his electronic devices. The trial court
denied his motion. The appellant appealed the denial of the motion to modify,
arguing that the trial court erred when it ordered him to take part in the pilot
program. Id. at ¶ 5.
This court found that the appellant’s core argument related to an
error in the imposition of community-control sanctions, not in the denial of the
motion to modify. As such, the appellant was attempting to bootstrap his appeal by
challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify conditions of community
control. This court concluded that the appellant’s arguments were barred by res
judicata and the court did not have jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Id. at ¶ 12.
Likewise, in this case, the trial court issued a cash medical support
order in its May 11, 2023 journal entries. Mother did not file a direct appeal of the
court’s orders. Instead, Mother improperly uses the court’s December 2, 2024
orders regarding the calculation of overpayment to try and challenge the May 11,
2023 orders setting the amount of cash medical support.
“‘Res judicata bars the consideration of issues that could have been
raised on direct appeal.’” Streets at ¶ 10, quoting Sabetta at ¶ 17. Because Mother’s
claims in the present appeal pertain to a purported error in the imposition of cash
medical support, they are untimely and barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Mother additionally claims that the court improperly failed to attach
a child-support worksheet to its December 2, 2024 orders, failed to allocate
responsibility for unreimbursed and uninsured health care expenses, issued “illegal”
nunc pro tunc orders, failed to comply with this court’s remand, and failed to follow
the law of the case. Each of these claims are directly related to the trial court’s May
11, 2023 orders and either could have been raised on direct appeal from those orders
or are without merit because they are based on the incorrect assumption that the
court did not order cash medical support in its May 11, 2023 entries. Accordingly,
assignments of error one through eight are overruled.
Parenting Time – G.C.
In her ninth assignment of error, Mother contends that the trial court
improperly modified its visitation order as it relates to vacation and extended
parenting time with G.C.5
Mother contends that the trial court’s December 2, 2024 order served
as a nunc pro tunc order changing her visitation schedule.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A) a trial court may issue a nunc pro tunc entry
to correct “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and
errors therein arising from oversight or omission.” “The rule permits a trial court to
modify a judgment if the judgment contains a clerical error, but not a substantive
error,” i.e., “‘a mistake or omission, mechanical in nature and apparent on the record
which does not involve a legal decision or judgment.’” L. Bryan Carr Co., LPA v.
LaForge, 2025-Ohio-889, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Litty v.
Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97, 100 (1996). “[N]unc pro tunc entries are limited
in proper use to reflecting what the court actually decided, not what the court might
or should have decided or what the court intended to decide.” State ex rel. Fogle v.
Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 164 (1995).
Mother takes issue with the court’s statement in its December 2, 2024
order that “[i]n officially awarding Mother four weeks of summer vacation parenting
5 J.C. reached the age of majority in January 2024.
annually, the court did not intend to also entitle Mother to six additional weeks of
parenting time per year.”
This issue arose after Father filed a motion to clarify the court’s
November 17, 2021 order regarding visitation. The court held a hearing on July 9,
2024, at which Father testified that there was a disagreement whether Mother was
entitled to six additional weeks of parenting time per year in addition to her four
weeks of summer visitation.
Ambiguity in a court order arises “‘when a provision in an order or
decree is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.’” McCloskey v.
McCloskey, 2024-Ohio-1900, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.), quoting McKinney v. McKinney, 142
Ohio App.3d 604, 609 (2d Dist. 2001). If there is good faith confusion over the
interpretation to be given to a particular clause of a court order, the trial court has
the power to hear the matter, clarify the confusion, and resolve the dispute. Henry
v. Henry, 2015-Ohio-4350, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). This court reviews a trial court’s
clarification of a court order for an abuse of discretion. Id., citing Collette v. Collette,
2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3823, *6 (9th Dist. Aug. 22, 2001).
The juvenile court’s November 17, 2021 order ordered, in pertinent
part, that Mother’s parenting time included:
4 weeks (28 days inclusive of weekends spent for vacation) of
summer/vacation parenting time annually. This parenting time may
be exercised in 4-day, one week, 10-day, up to 2 week uninterrupted
increments, without scheduled parenting time for the other parent.
Week-long vacation must include a regularly, scheduled weekend
parenting time for the vacationing parent and return of the child to the