Mallikarjunaiah v. Shankar ( 2020 )

[Cite as Mallikarjunaiah v. Shankar, 2020-Ohio-4508.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
SMITHA MALLIKARJUNAIAH, :
Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2019-11-122
CA2019-11-123
:
- vs - OPINION
: 9/21/2020
PRASAD SHANKAR, :
Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. 17DR39885
Smitha Mallikarjunaiah, 2651 Citrus Lake Drive, D 204, Naples, Florida 34109, pro se
Prasad Shankar, 1766 Chaparral Drive, Pittsburg, California, 94565, pro se
RINGLAND, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Prasad Shankar ("Father"), appeals a decision from the Warren
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, resolving several motions
specific to parenting time, custody, reunification counseling, and costs. For the reasons
detailed below, we affirm.
{¶2} Father and Smitha Mallikarjunahaiah ("Mother") married in California and
Warren CA2019-11-122
CA2019-11-123
subsequently dissolved their marriage in 2006 in the Superior Court of California County of
Monterey. The parties have one child by issue of their marriage, a son born on January 25,
2004.
{¶3} In 2016, Mother was permitted to move to Ohio with their son. The record
reflects that Mother and Father jointly stipulated that the parties would participate in
reunification counseling with a counselor in Mason, Ohio.1
{¶4} The procedural history of this case is muddled. These proceedings initially
began with Mother's petition to register a foreign order granting custody of their child to her.
However, on October 18, 2017, Father moved to modify the custody and visitation order
from the California Court.
{¶5} Subsequently, the parties entered into an agreed entry that permitted Mother
to relocate to Florida with their son so that he could attend a private school and tennis
academy. Pursuant to the second agreed entry, Father was ordered to arrange reunification
counseling with one of two agencies listed in the order.
{¶6} Father's efforts to arrange reunification counseling were unsuccessful and, on
November 16, 2018, he filed four motions: a motion to stop delaying counselling, a motion
for choosing right therapist [sic], a motion to share expenses, and a motion for fees/costs.
On March 11, 2019, Mother moved to dismiss Father's complaints and also moved for
sanctions for frivolous conduct.
{¶7} The trial court held a hearing on May 17, 2019. During the hearing both
parties agreed that the counselors that Father contacted were unable or unwilling to help in
reunification counseling. Therefore, the parties entered into a third agreed entry where
1. Though the stipulation does not expressly state so, we presume the reunification counseling was agreed
to for purposes of repairing the relationship between Father and his son, as that is the issue before this court.
-2-
Warren CA2019-11-122
CA2019-11-123
three additional counselors were listed for Father to contact and arrange reunification
counseling. The remaining outstanding issues were submitted to the court.
{¶8} On May 22, 2019, the magistrate issued its decision with the following
findings: (1) Mother's motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions is denied, (2) Father's
motion to share expenses and for fees, costs, and sanctions is denied, (3) Father's motion
for Mother to pay a portion of his travel costs is denied, and (4) the court does have
jurisdiction to hear the matter.
{¶9} Father filed objections to the May 22, 2019 magistrate's decision. Father
argued that his motion to share expenses and for fees, costs, and sanctions should have
been granted. Father argued that since Mother is the one who moved, she should be
responsible for travel expenses. In addition, Father argued that the court should sanction
Mother for filing frivolous motions against Father and for wasting time.
{¶10} The trial court overruled Father's objections in an October 9, 2019 entry. The
trial court noted that Mother pays all of their son's tuition and determined that imposing
additional expenses upon her would be disproportionate. Further, the court found that
Father could have requested these expenses previously but failed to do so and therefore
waived the issue. Finally, the court did not find that Mother engaged in frivolous conduct,
noting that such domestic relations matters can be lengthy and contentious.
{¶11} Another hearing was held on October 9, 2019. The transcript of that
proceeding was not filed and therefore this court cannot ascertain what evidence was
presented.
{¶12} On October 23, 2019, the magistrate issued its decision. Relevant to this
appeal, the magistrate denied Father's motion to change custody, but did change the
parenting time order by eliminating the prior requirement for reunification counseling
-3-
Warren CA2019-11-122
CA2019-11-123
between Father and son. At the time of the hearing, the child was 15 years old. The
magistrate noted that "it is unfortunate, but the child has made it clear that he does not want
a relationship with his Father at this time." As a result, the magistrate ordered parenting
time as such:
1. One time per month, Father may make arrangements to visit
the child in person in Florida. This parenting time is
unsupervised. Father shall provide Mother and the child with
fourteen-day notice of his intent to exercise this parenting time.
Where Father's parenting time takes place and how long Father
has parenting time is at the child's discretion. For example, if
the child agrees to have dinner with Father, then he may do so.
***
2. Father shall continue to have video parenting time through
Skype, or a similar service, twice per week;
3. The parties are no longer required to attend reunification
counseling. The child does not wish to have a relationship with
Father at this time. The parties do not appear willing to
participate in counseling either. Therefore, * * * the therapists
have indicated reunification counseling will not be effective;
** *
{¶13} Father failed to timely file objections and the trial court adopted the
magistrate's decision as the permanent order in a November 8, 2019 entry. On November
19, 2019, Father filed untimely objections to the magistrate's decision. Father now appeals,
raising three assignments of error for review.
{¶14} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶15} COURT SHOULD REVIEW THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO CANCEL
FATHER AND SON REUNIFICATION COUNSELLING IS REALLY AT BEST INTEREST
OF THE CHILD. (sic)
{¶16} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶17} WHETHER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS TO PROVE MOTHER
-4-
Warren CA2019-11-122
CA2019-11-123
IS NOT VIOLATED CALIFORNIA COURT ORDER, WHICH STATES REUNIFICATION
COST SHOULD BE SHARED BY BOTH PARTIES. (sic)
{¶18} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶19} TRAIL COURT'S DECISION TO SQUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO MR.
KRAMER TO TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL COURT IS JUSTIFIED. (sic)
{¶20} Father's assignments of error will be addressed together.2 Following review
of the limited record before this court, we find Father's appeal to be without merit.
{¶21} Civ.R. 53(D)(3) governs the procedure for objecting to a magistrate's decision.
"This rule requires a party to make timely, specific objections in writing to the trial court,
identifying any error of fact or law in the magistrate's decision." Koeppen v. Swank, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2008-09-234, 2009-Ohio-3675, ¶ 29.
{¶22} In the present case, the magistrate's decision vacating the order for
reunification counseling and denying Father's motion for sanctions was issued on October
23, 2019. Nevertheless, Father did not file objections until November 19, 2019, which was
outside the 14-day timeframe required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i). Accordingly, Father did not
timely file objections to the magistrate's decision. By failing to object to the magistrate's
actions, Father has waived all but plain error on appeal. Thompson v. Cannon, 12th Dist.
Fayette No. CA2015-02-003, 2015-Ohio-2893, ¶ 12. "Plain error is only found in
'exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court,
seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process,
thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.'" Holden v.
Holden, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2015-07-016, 2016-Ohio-5557, ¶ 25, quoting Goldfuss v.
2. Father does not specifically raise any assignments of error in his brief, but instead lists a "statement of
issues presented for review," which we will construe as his assignments of error. However, we have
considered Father's entire brief.
-5-
Warren CA2019-11-122
CA2019-11-123
Davidson, 79 Ohio St. 3d 116 (1997), syllabus.
{¶23} Having reviewed the record, we find that the trial court's decision was not plain
error. As an initial matter, Father's brief points to no legal authority and does not coherently
raise any ascertainable right to relief. Rather, Father's brief is essentially a list of grievances
that he holds against Mother and the way this case has proceeded.
{¶24} Ohio law is well settled that an appellant on appeal must provide legal
arguments and citations to both legal authority and the record sub judice that substantiate
the alleged error. Streaker v. Streaker, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2018-05-013, 2019-Ohio-
832, ¶ 6.
{¶25} "An appellate court will neither construct assignments of error nor create
arguments on behalf of an appellant because it is not the duty of an Ohio appellate court to
raise arguments for the parties." Dudley v. Dudley, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-01-021,
2019-Ohio-4309, ¶ 10. Moreover, "if an argument exists that can support [an] assignment
of error, it is not this court's duty to root it out." In re Constable, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos.
CA2006-08-058 and CA2006-09-067, 2007-Ohio-3346, ¶ 12. "An appellate court is not a
performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal." State v.
Wilson, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-03-022, 2019-Ohio-338, ¶ 27.
{¶26} Moreover, because Father failed to provide a transcript of the October 9, 2019
hearing, we cannot ascertain what evidence was presented or omitted below. It is well
settled that if an appellant fails to provide the court of appeals with a transcript or an agreed
statement of the trial court's proceedings, he or she generally will be unable to demonstrate
the error on which his or her appeal is based, and in such instances, the court of appeals
must presume the regularity and correctness of the proceedings in the trial court. Dowers
v. Dowers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-04-071, 2015-Ohio-4530, ¶ 12. Provided the
-6-
Warren CA2019-11-122
CA2019-11-123
limited record before this court, we find the trial court did not commit plain error in resolving
this matter. Father's three assignments of error are without merit and hereby overruled.
{¶27} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-7-