In re A.C.-L.

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court order designating the child’s father as legal custodian and residential parent. The court held that the mother failed to demonstrate plain error concerning the guardian ad litem’s nonparticipation, factual findings, parenting schedule, or notice issues, and that the child-support assignment was outside the scope of the appeal. The court also declined to consider hearing transcripts that had not been filed with the juvenile court.

Holdings

1. In an original custody determination under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), the juvenile court must apply the best-interest standard under R.C. 3109.04 and consider all relevant factors, including those listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).
2. An appellant who fails to timely object to a magistrate's decision and fails to file the transcript with the trial court may not challenge the magistrate's factual findings on appeal; appellate review is limited to plain error, and the appellate court cannot consider evidence that the trial court did not have.
3. The juvenile court did not commit plain error by proceeding without active guardian ad litem participation because a GAL was not mandatory in this original custody proceeding under the circumstances shown, and Mother failed to demonstrate prejudice.
4. Mother did not establish plain error or an abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's findings concerning parental communication, housing stability, caregiving, or custodial history.
5. Ordering Mother to exercise parenting time every other week beginning with a Sunday evening exchange was not an abuse of discretion or plain error.
6. The child-support assignment of error was outside the scope of the appeal and was not addressed on the merits.
7. Although the record showed that the magistrate's decision and judgment entry were mailed to an address different from the address used for hearing notices, Mother failed to show manifest injustice or prejudice requiring reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the juvenile court properly applied the best-interest standard in designating Father as legal custodian and residential parent.
2. Whether Mother's failure to timely object to the magistrate's decision and failure to file the hearing transcript with the juvenile court limited appellate review to plain error.
3. Whether proceeding without active guardian ad litem participation constituted reversible or plain error.
4. Whether the juvenile court's factual findings concerning communication, housing stability, caregiving, and custodial history required reversal.
5. Whether the every-other-week parenting schedule and Sunday evening exchange time constituted an abuse of discretion.
6. Whether the child-support issue was within the scope of the appeal.
7. Whether irregular mailing of the magistrate's decision and judgment entry resulted in a due-process violation or manifest injustice.

Disposition

affirmed