Costin v. Atkins ( 2011 )

[Cite as Costin v. Atkins, 2011-Ohio-6680.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
CHRIS COSTIN C.A. No. 11CA010025
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
CRYSTAL ATKINS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
Appellee CASE No. 09JG27776
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 27, 2011
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Chris Costin, appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Appellee, Crystal Atkins, and Mr. Costin have two minor children. Mr. Costin
filed a complaint for custody of the children in the Lorain County Juvenile Court. The parties
entered into a shared parenting agreement on May 4, 2010.
{¶3} On March 21, 2011, Ms. Atkins filed a motion to modify child support. Mr.
Costin filed a brief in opposition to the motion. The matter proceeded to a hearing before the
magistrate who issued a decision on May 26, 2011. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s
decision the same day, issued a child support order, but deferred ruling on the issue of
arrearages. The magistrate held another hearing on June 20, 2011, on Ms. Atkins’ motion to
modify child support for the purpose of disposing of all unresolved issues. The magistrate issued
2
her decision on June 23, 2011. The trial court adopted the decision the same day, and ordered
Mr. Costin to pay child support, all arrearages, and an additional amount for day care for the
children. Mr. Costin filed a timely appeal in which he raises four assignments of error. This
Court consolidates the assignments of error to facilitate review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT INCLUDING ALL THE INCOME OF
[MS. ATKINS] IN THE CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
PER [R.C.] 3119.01[.]”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT INCLUDING THE CHILD CARE
COSTS IN THE CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET PER
[R.C.] 3119.023[.] INSTEAD, IT WAS CHARGED TO [MR. COSTIN] AS AN
ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.’
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING [MR. COSTIN] TO PAY
CHILD CARE COSTS DIRECTLY TO THE CHILD CARE PROVIDER
INSTEAD OF INCLUDING IT IN THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT TO
[MS. ATKINS].”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING [MR. COSTIN] TO PAY
DIRECTLY TO [MS. ATKINS] CHILD CARE COSTS INCURRED FROM
FILING DATE OF [MS. ATKINS’] MOTION TO MODIFY CHILD
SUPPORT.”
{¶4} Mr. Costin argues that the trial court erred in its calculation and disposition of
child support issues. This Court disagrees.
{¶5} In cases where the matter was initially heard by a magistrate whose decision was
adopted by the trial court, “[a]ny claim of trial court error must be based on the actions of the
3
trial court, not on the magistrate’s findings or proposed decision.” Mealey v. Mealey (May 8,
1996), 9th Dist. No. 95CA0093.
{¶6} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(i) allows a party to file written objections to a decision of the
magistrate within fourteen days of the filing of the decision. Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that
“a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal
conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under
Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by
Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b).” Where a party has failed to file any objections to the magistrate’s findings
or conclusions, that party has waived the right to challenge either the findings or conclusions on
appeal. Tawney v. Tawney, 9th Dist. No. 02CA0018-M, 2002-Ohio-6122, at ¶15. Mr. Costin
failed to file objections to either of the magistrate’s decisions. Accordingly, he failed to preserve
for appeal any issues arising out of the hearing on the motion to modify child support and has
waived his right to challenge the trial court’s judgment adopting the decision. Mr. Costin’s
assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶7} Mr. Costin’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
4
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, P. J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
CHRIS COSTIN, pro se, Appellant.
JAMES SMITH, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.