Elsewhere in this blog I have mentioned how the "law" does not always comport with common sense (sometimes, common sense would be what non-lawyers would think of a situation). For example, it is hard to imagine that the children who are supposed to be financially supported by both parents are not "victims" of the non-custodial parent who fails to meet their support obligations. Instead, the law says, the "victim" is the Child Support Enforcement Agency (non-lawyers would say "give me a break") and the custodial parent the CSEA is supposed to hand the money to (minus some).
Who the victim is in a felony non-support of dependents case was at issue in State v. Sorrell, 2010-Ohio-1618, because Sorrell sought "ILC" or intervention in lieu of conviction. But ILC is not available to defendants whose victims were under thirteen at the time of the offense, pursuant to R.C. 2951.041(B)(7), and Sorrell's application for ILC was denied because a couple of the kids he was not supporting were under thirteen as he racked up almost 30k in arrears.
Not to worry Mr. Sorrell, because your kids are not your "victims" under Ohio law so your denial of ILC is reversed and the case is remanded "for further proceedings consistent with [the] opinion" as you can read by clicking here. The "victims," the CSEA and the mom, were both above thirteen and so Mr. Sorrell could still qualify for ILC on remand.
Bottom line? Don't give up on winning your appeal just because common sense is against you. The law may be on your side.
