The Eighth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court’s rulings in a case involving a custody dispute between B.C. (Father) and T.C. (Mother) over their child, K.C. The appellate court found that the Father’s appeals regarding certain rulings were filed too late and that he failed to provide necessary documentation to support his arguments.
Background of the Case
The case originated in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, with Father filing for custody of K.C. on January 26, 2024. Since then, he filed numerous motions related to custody, visitation, child support, and other related issues. The current appeal focuses on the juvenile court’s decisions made on March 26, March 27, April 10, and May 10, 2025.
Specific Rulings and the Appeal
On March 26, 2025, the juvenile court addressed several motions filed by the Father. Some motions were denied because they lacked a legal basis, while others were deemed attempts to appeal previous court orders. The court also overruled Father’s objections to a magistrate’s decisions and affirmed those decisions.
On March 27, 2025, the juvenile court issued two separate orders. The first denied motions filed by the Father, finding they were not warranted by existing law. The court also declared the Father a vexatious litigator due to the high volume of motions filed. The second order, issued on the same day, addressed various arguments made by the Father regarding child support, including income calculations and deviations. The court denied these arguments, finding that the Father had not met his burden of proof.
The Father appealed the juvenile court’s rulings from March 26, March 27, April 10, and May 10, 2025.
Appellate Court’s Decision
The appellate court’s decision focused on several key issues:
Timeliness of the Appeal: The court examined whether the Father’s appeal of the April 10 and May 10, 2025 entries was filed within the required timeframe. According to the court, the Father’s amended notice of appeal, which included the April 10, 2025 entry, was filed more than 30 days after the juvenile court’s decision. Therefore, the appellate court determined it did not have the authority to consider the appeal of the April 10, 2025 entry. The court also declined to address the May 23, 2025 entry because it was not included in the original or amended notice of appeal.
Lack of Transcript: The appellate court noted that the juvenile court’s March 27, 2025 entry involved testimony. However, the Father did not provide a transcript of the proceedings to the appellate court. The court cited previous rulings stating that without a record, they must assume the trial court’s proceedings were proper and that the evidence supported the court’s conclusions.
Failure to Identify Error: The court pointed out that the Father’s assignments of error did not specify which errors were made in the record. Appellate Rule 16(A)(7) requires appellants to clearly state their arguments, citing specific parts of the record to support their claims. The court emphasized that the Father’s brief made general claims of error but failed to identify the specific errors or provide legal arguments for each motion and objection.
Conclusion
Because the Father’s appeal of the April 10, 2025, entry was untimely, and because he failed to provide a transcript or identify specific errors in the record, the appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders from March 26 and March 27, 2025. The court stated it did not have the authority to consider the appeal of the May 23, 2025 entry. The Father was ordered to pay the court costs.