In re C.G.R.

[Cite as In re C.G.R., 2012-Ohio-3690.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97800 IN RE: C.G.R. A Minor Child [Appeal by Father] JUDGMENT: DISMISSED Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. CU 05104317 BEFORE: Sweeney, J., Boyle, P.J., and Jones, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 16, 2012 FOR APPELLANT C.R., Pro Se 6427 Newland Road Cleveland, Ohio 44130 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Joseph C. Young, Esq. Assistant County Prosecutor C.S.E.A. P.O. Box 93894 Cleveland, Ohio 44101-5984 FOR APPELLEE Danielle Lentine, Pro Se 4524 Broadview Road Cleveland, Ohio 44109 JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.: {¶1} Defendant-appellant, C.R., father of C.G.R. (d.o.b. 5/11/05)1 (hereinafter “Father”) has appealed, pro se, the juvenile court’s order of December 14, 2011, that approved the magistrate’s decision that denied Father’s motion to modify custody. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal. {¶2} The record reflects that Father moved to modify custody and/or visitation relative to the Child. Therein, Father petitioned the court for restitution and a change of the custody arrangement. Father averred that despite the shared parenting order, the Child has been under his custody since “6/05-present.” Father also filed written objections to the Magistrate’s Decision dated July 25, 2011, regarding support establishment on the same grounds. On September 5, 2011, the juvenile court found Father’s objections “well taken,” sustained them, and returned the matter to the Magistrate for “further proceedings.” {¶3} Father’s Motion to Modify Custody was denied by a Magistrate’s Decision dated September 12, 2011. Father did not file any objections to the September 12, 2011 Magistrate’s Decision, which was adopted by the juvenile court on December 14, 2011, and is the subject of this appeal. {¶4} Father’s appellate brief essentially contains a statement of the case, without 1 Referred to hereafter as the “Child.” any argument or law. There is no appellee brief in this record. Consequently, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeal. App.R. 12 and 16. In doing so, we are not affirming or otherwise addressing the propriety of the order appealed. We note the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over child custody and support issues continues until the child reaches majority. E.g., Calogeras v. Calogeras, 82 Ohio L.Abs. 438, 163 N.E.2d 713, (1959); see also R.C. 2151.23. Accordingly, the parties are not precluded from pursuing modification of same in the future. {¶5} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES J. SWEENEY, JUDGE MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR