[Cite as Hutchison v. Hutchison, 2011-Ohio-1409.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GREENE COUNTY, OHIO
JOSHUA HUTCHISON :
Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 10CA62
vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 08DR80
KATIE HUTCHISON : (Civil Appeal from
Common Pleas Court
Defendant-Appellee : Domestic Relations Div.)
. . . . . . . . .
O P I N I O N
Rendered on the 25th day of March, 2011.
. . . . . . . . .
Joshua Hutchison, 533 N. Lincoln Street, Wilmington, OH 45177
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se
Katie Hutchison, 24 Lucerne Avenue, Dayton, OH 45410
Defendant-Appellee, Pro Se
. . . . . . . . .
GRADY, P.J.:
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a post-decree order in a divorce
action.
{¶ 2} Joshua Hutchinson and Katie Hutchison were divorced on
July 29, 2008. The court approved a shared parenting plan for
the parties’ minor children. (Dkt. 22).
{¶ 3} On January 13, 2009, following a hearing, and by
2
agreement of the parties, the court terminated the shared parenting
plan and designated Joshua 1 the residential parent and legal
custodian of the three minor children. Katie was granted the right
to visit with the minor children two times each week for one hour
at the Greene County Family Visitation Center. (Dkt. 41).
{¶ 4} On April 28, 2010, on the court’s own motion, the parties
were notified that, on July 7, 2010, the court would consider the
continued use of the Greene County Family Visitation Center in
this case. The parties were ordered to attend the hearing and
to bring proof of their incomes. (Dkt. 65).
{¶ 5} The magistrate held a hearing on that matter and rendered
a decision on July 7, 2010. Katie was ordered to pay the Greene
County Family Visitation Center three hundred dollars to cover
costs of the supervised visitation the court had ordered. (Dkt.
68).
{¶ 6} Katie filed objections to the magistrate’s decision.
On July 30, 2010, the court modified the magistrate’s decision
to order the three hundred dollar fee allocated between the parties
in proportion to their relative incomes. Katie was ordered to
pay forty-five percent of the fee, or $135.00. Joshua was ordered
to pay fifty-five percent of the fee, or $165.00. Joshua filed
1
For clarity and convenience, the parties are identified
by their first names.
3
a notice of appeal.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 7} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE IN
ORDERING THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY 55%OF THE VISITATION CENTER FEES
AS CRIMES OF THE DEFENDANT NECESSITATED THE USE OF THE VISITATION
CENTER AND AS THE [PLAINTIFF] HAS FULL CUSTODY OF ALL THREE MINOR
CHILDREN.”
{¶ 8} Joshua argues that the domestic relations court abused
its discretion in ordering him to share in the costs owed the Greene
County Family Visitation Center. He contends that the use of that
facility was necessitated by Katie’s own misconduct, that he
complied with all requirements the Greene County Family Visitation
Center imposed, and that Katie had cancelled more than half of
the scheduled visitations.
{¶ 9} Katie filed a brief in response. She contends that
Joshua’s assertions are incorrect. Katie also states that she
“is more than willing to pay the amount decided by the judge.”
{¶ 10} Unless Joshua raised the matters on which he relies in
the proceedings before the magistrate, any error the court
committed in those respects is waived for purposes of appeal.
It is Joshua’s duty, as appellant, to demonstrate that the error
he assigns was thus preserved.
{¶ 11} App.R. 9 requires an appellant to file a written
4
transcript of the proceedings before the trial court exemplifying
that the error assigned was preserved. When an appellant fails
to file the required transcript, the presumption of correctness
we must give to the trial court’s determinations requires an
affirmance of the judgment or order from which the appeal was taken.
Williams v. Vahila, Carroll App. No. 06CA832, 2007-Ohio-730.
{¶ 12} Joshua failed to file a printed or written transcript
of the July 7, 2010 hearing before the magistrate. We must
therefore presume the correctness of the domestic relations court’s
subsequent order modifying the magistrate’s decision.
{¶ 13} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of
the domestic relations court will be affirmed.
FAIN, J. And DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Joshua Hutchison
Katie Hutchison
Hon. Steven L. Hurley