Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 Ohio App. 3d 228

623 N.E.2d 687

State v. Herring

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 10, 1993

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1993-06-10

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2008

6 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-06-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

John C. Young, Judge,

¶1 concurring separately.

¶2 I concur in the majority opinion of this court that R.C. 2929.11 does not authorize the trial court to order restitution of unpaid child support as a result of a conviction of criminal nonsupport (R.C. 2929.21). However, pursuant to R.C. 3113.21(M)(1), any court may take action to enforce the payment of a terminated support order. Said section reads as follows:

“The termination of a support obligation or a support order does not abate the power of any court to collect overdue and unpaid support or to punish any person for a failure to comply with an order of the court or to pay any support as ordered in the terminated support order.”

¶3*231 R.C. 3113.21(M)(1) may be enforced through an action for civil contempt or by granting judgment for the unpaid child support and a subsequent action for collection as may be authorized for any of the usual civil debts.

/88/ohioapp3d/228 · .json · Public domain