Youngstown Daily Legal News

Judges rule parents don't have to pay adult child's legal bills

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 19, 2013

A 4th District Court of Appeals panel recently issued an opinion overruling a lower court’s judgment and finding that an Ohio University student was entitled to appointed counsel.

The three-judge appellate panel found that the Athens County Municipal Court wrongly considered Kelly Kasler’s parents’ income when assessing her application for appointment of counsel.

Presiding Judge Matthew McFarland wrote the opinion for the court and held that Kasler’s parents were not required to pay for her legal counsel because she was over the age of 18.

The facts of the case state that Kasler was a 21-year-old student at OU when she was arrested and charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest on Oct. 28, 2012.

Both charges were second-degree misdemeanors and she was released the following day when her father posted a cash bond on her behalf.

On Oct. 30, 2012, Kasler filed a financial disclosure/affidavit of indigency form.

She listed her address as that of her parents’ home in Vandalia, Ohio and included her family as “other persons living in the household.”

The form indicated that she worked at O’Charley’s and earned $400 per month.

The municipal court denied her application and noted a need for information regarding her household income and expenses.

On a second application, Kasler said she had no monthly income because she only works during the summer and, again, it was denied for the same reason.

Kasler’s third application noted her parents’ income, but stated that they would not be helping her with any attorney fees or court costs.

The trial court denied the third application based on Kasler’s family income.

A fourth application listed Kasler’s Athens apartment, no monthly income, and her total monthly expenses.

The trial court still denied the application based on family income and expenses and an Ohio public defender got involved.

At a hearing to determine indigency, the assistant public defender argued that Kasler’s parents would not be paying any legal fees and had no duty to support their daughter because she was over 18.

The trial court determined that Kasler’s parents pay her tuition, room and board while Kasler is responsible for buying her own food and paying any legal costs.

Still, it denied her application for appointment of counsel.

On appeal to the 4th District, Kasler argued that the trial court erred by denying her application.

“More specifically, appellant contends that her parents’ income should have been excluded from her household income because they have no duty to support her, as she is an adult,” Judge McFarland stated.

In response, the state argued that “household income” is not defined by the Ohio Administrative Code and that the trial court consulted the proper authorities when defining it.

The appellate judges found that the governing section of the Ohio Administrative Code states that a key issue “in determining indigency is not whether the applicant ought to be able to employ counsel but whether the applicant is, in fact, able to do so.”

“The trial court appears to have limited its analysis to the issue of ‘household income,’ admittedly a factor to be considered when determining indigency, but which is undefined in the pertinent sections of the Revised and Administrative Codes discussed herein,” Judge McFarland wrote. “Although consideration of household income is clearly a factor in the determination of indigency, it is not the sole consideration.”

The judges stated that, according to the record, the trial court refused to consider the fact that Kasler’s parents had no legal duty to financially support her.

“In the present case, although appellant is a member of her parents’ household, which household income exceeds the limit for indigency status and appointed counsel, appellant represented to the trial counsel repeatedly that her parents were not assisting her in employing counsel,” Judge McFarland stated.

After review, the 4th District agreed with the Ohio Public Defender’s Office that Kasler’s parents had no legal duty to support their adult daughter and it was the trial court’s responsibility to take that into consideration.

It held that under Ohio law, parents have no duty to legally support their child beyond the child’s 18th birthday.

The district judges further determined that Kasler “ought” to be able to pay for counsel, but that it failed to determine if she actually could do so.

“In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s application for court-appointed counsel,” Judge McFarland concluded.

“Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Judges Peter Abele and Marie Hoover joined to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Kasler, 2013-Ohio-3850.

[Back]