[Cite as In re J.F., 2017-Ohio-1492.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: J.F. :
CASE NO. CA2016-08-174
:
OPINION
: 4/24/2017
:
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. JS2014-0345
Cornetet, Myer, Rush & Stapleton, Karen P. Meyer, 123 Boggs Lane, Cincinnati, Ohio 45246,
for appellant
Law Offices of Myron A. Wolf, Dennis Adams, 10 Journal Square, Suite 400, P.O. Box 643,
Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for appellee
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, E.W. ("Mother"), appeals a decision of the Butler County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying her request that defendant-appellee, J.F.
("Father"), retroactively pay birth and medical expenses regarding their daughter, and that the
effective date of the child support order be the child's date of birth.
{¶ 2} Mother and Father are the parents of an eight-year-old daughter. The parties
were never married to one another. The record indicates that following the child's birth, the
parties had an informal arrangement regarding custody, parenting time, and child support. In
Butler CA2016-08-174
2014, Father filed a complaint for custody but subsequently dismissed it without prejudice;
Mother made a formal request to the Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency
("CSEA") for a child support order. On June 24, 2015, CSEA issued an administrative order
for Father to pay $988.98 a month in child support, effective May 27, 2015. Both parties
challenged the CSEA child support administrative order; a hearing was held before a
magistrate on December 22, 2015.
{¶ 3} In a decision filed on December 23, 2015, the magistrate ordered Father to pay
Mother $980.53 a month in child support. The magistrate noted that in lieu of a cash medical
support order, the parties had agreed Mother would obtain and maintain dental insurance.
The magistrate denied Mother's request that the child support order "revert back to the date
of birth[.] The effective date will be 05/27/2015, the date of the initial child support order."
The magistrate further denied "Mother's requests for Father to pay prior Birth Expenses, Day
Care, & Health Insurance costs[.] Mother chose not to pursue support and these related
items for a period in excess of five years."
{¶ 4} Mother filed objections to the magistrate's decision, challenging, inter alia, the
magistrate's failure to "address how the child was to be supported in 2009 at all [and] include
the cost Mother paid for dental insurance for the minor child in the calculation of child
support." Following a hearing on the objections on March 28, 2016, the juvenile court
sustained Mother's objection regarding dental insurance, overruled Mother's other objections,
and remanded the matter for the magistrate to factor Mother's cost of dental insurance into
the support calculation. Mother subsequently appealed the juvenile court's decision to this
court, but we dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In the Matter of:
J.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-05-086 (June 7, 2016) (Judgment Entry of Dismissal).
{¶ 5} Following a hearing on July 27, 2016, the magistrate adopted the parties'
parenting time agreement, and upon recalculation, ordered Father to pay Mother $991.30 a
-2-
Butler CA2016-08-174
month in child support. The magistrate's decision was adopted the following day by the
juvenile court.
{¶ 6} Mother now appeals, raising three assignments of error.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT MOTHER'S REQUEST
FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHILD SUPPORT TO BE THE CHILD'S DATE OF BIRTH.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT MOTHER
REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNCOVERED MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CHILD FROM BIRTH THROUGH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHILD SUPPORT
ORDER.
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT MOTHER HER
REASONABLE AND NECESSARY BIRTHING EXPENSES.
{¶ 13} In her three assignments of error, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in not
granting her request that the effective date of the child support order be the child's date of
birth and that Father retroactively pay the uncovered birth and medical expenses she
incurred for their child, especially given the "uncontroverted testimony" and "meticulous
records" Mother presented at the hearing.
{¶ 14} We are precluded from reviewing the issues raised in Mother's assignments of
error. Objections to a magistrate's decision must be "specific and state with particularity all
grounds for objection." Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(ii). The failure to file specific objections is treated
the same as the failure to file any objections. In re A.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-08-
143, 2016-Ohio-4919, ¶ 32. Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that "[e]xcept for a claim of plain
error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or
-3-
Butler CA2016-08-174
legal conclusion * * * unless the party has objected to that finding as required by Juv.R.
40(D)(3)(b)." This court has previously ruled that "unless the appellant argues a 'claim of
plain error,' the appellant has waived the claimed errors not objected to below." In re L.K.,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-06-145, 2015-Ohio-1091, ¶ 16; In re K.P.R., 197 Ohio App.3d
193, 2011-Ohio-6114, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 15} Although Mother filed objections to the magistrate's December 23, 2015
decision, she did not raise any issues as to the effective date of the child's support order or
her request to be reimbursed for the uncovered birth and medical expenses incurred for the
benefit of the child. It is well-recognized that the failure to draw a trial court's attention to
possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for
purposes of appeal. In re K.P.R. at ¶ 9. Further, Mother does not claim plain error here.
She is therefore precluded from raising these issues on appeal. See In re L.K. at ¶ 17.
{¶ 16} We further note that although the magistrate held a hearing on December 22,
2015, following the CSEA child support administrative order, and the juvenile court held a
hearing on Mother's objections to the magistrate's decision on March 28, 2016, Mother failed
to provide this court with a transcript of these hearings or an acceptable alternative, as
required by App.R. 9. As a result, we have no choice but to presume the regularity of the
proceedings and the validity of the juvenile court's judgment. Gray v. King, 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2013-01-006, 2013-Ohio-3085, ¶ 34. See also Wilhoite v. Kast, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2001-01-001, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5996 (Dec. 31, 2001) (a meaningful
review of a trial court's decision must be based on the record before us, not mere conclusory
assertions in an appellate brief).
{¶ 17} Mother's first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-4-