arrow left
arrow right
  • KRONENBERGER, TIMOTHY LYLE vs. KRONENBERGER, BRITTANY L DIVORCE WITH PARENTAGE document preview
  • KRONENBERGER, TIMOTHY LYLE vs. KRONENBERGER, BRITTANY L DIVORCE WITH PARENTAGE document preview
  • KRONENBERGER, TIMOTHY LYLE vs. KRONENBERGER, BRITTANY L DIVORCE WITH PARENTAGE document preview
  • KRONENBERGER, TIMOTHY LYLE vs. KRONENBERGER, BRITTANY L DIVORCE WITH PARENTAGE document preview
						
                                

Preview

Filed on 03/22/2016 at 10:10 AM in Wayne County, Ohio IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO Britney Kronenberger nka Foster Case No. 09-DR-0222 Plaintiff Robert B. Hines, Magistrate vs. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION Timothy Kronenberger Defendant This matter came on for hearing before the Magistrate on the 16" day of March, 2016. Plaintiff appeared pro se. Defendant appeared with Attorney Patricia Rodgers. Attorney Natalie Harper appeared on behalf of the Wayne County CSEA. DECISION The matter is before the court upon a Motion to Review Request for Visitation Abatement filed by the Wayne County CSEA on January 27, 2016. The defendant has made a request for a visitation abatement of child support. The periods of time in question, all in the summer of 2015 are: June 5 - June 12; June 19 - June 26; duly 8 - July 14; July 26 - July 31; August 7 - August 14. The defendant has parenting time according to Local Rule 14 Title 18. Effective June 17, 2015, Local Rule 14 Title 18 was amended. The old version of the rule provided for a summer visitation abatement of child support of 50% for any visitation of seven or more consecutive days. The new version of the rule completely eliminated the summer visitation abatement. The magistrate decides the defendant is entitled to a summer visitation abatement of child support for the period of time he visited with the children before the new version of the rule became effective, June 17, 2015. He therefore is entitled to anFiled on 03/22/2016 at 10:10 AM in Wayne County, Ohio eight day visitation abatement of child support of 50% of the child support he would otherwise owe for the period of time from June 5-June 12, 2015. The costs of this matter should be waived. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any findings of fact or conclusion of law in that decision unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by [Civ. R. 53(E)(3)]. The parties have fourteen days from the date of the filing of this Decision to file written objections with the Clerk of Courts Office. Any such objections must be served upon all parties to this action, and a copy must be provided to the Domestic Relations Court. “Dee Lt Robert B. Hines, Magistrate Dated: 3/21/2016