In re C.G.R. , 2012 Ohio 3690 ( 2012 )

[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