Blevins v. Blevins, 2014 Ohio 3933

Appellant and appellee married in 2002, have three children, and divorced in 2008 with appellant as residential parent; appellant relocated to Marion, Ohio in 2010.
Appellee moved to modify parenting rights in 2012 alleging substantial change in circumstances due to appellant’s relocations; several addresses were used for appellant in litigation.
Appellee’s motion to modify was filed, and appellant answered with motions to dismiss and to seek attorney-fees; hearing conducted with appellant pro se and appellee represented.
Magistrate’s December 18, 2013 decision partially granted modification, kept appellant as residential parent, and imposed curb-side exchanges; ordered counseling participation.
Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on December 27, 2013; service issues arose regarding notices and subsequent orders, but no objections to the magistrate’s decision were filed by appellant.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 3, 2014, with transcript filed later; appellate review proceeded on plain error due to lack of objections to the magistrate’s findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did trial court err by denying dismissal and related fees?	Blevins argues dismissal of appellee’s motion and fees should be granted.	Blevins contends magistrate credibility determinations supported denial of dismissal and fee award.	No plain error; motions properly denied.
Were best-interest determinations and counseling omitted improperly?	Blevins asserts failure to obtain counseling recommendation affected best-interest analysis.	Marion- relocation precluded prior counseling; court considered relevant factors.	No reversible error; magistrate complied with best-interest factors.
Was appellee’s child-support modification improper?	Blevins contends retroactive reduction was unwarranted.	Court-calculated support per worksheet supported modification.	No plain error; support modification upheld.
Did trial court improperly grant access to appellant’s home during visits given safety issues?	Safety concerns due to domestic violence/stalking alleged; home access not appropriate.	Exchanges were to be conducted curb-side; no direct access to home occurred.	No error; orders limited exchanges to curb-side.
Was appellant denied opportunity to object to magistrate’s decision?	Appellant claims lack of timely objection due to address issues.	Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) allows objections within 14 days; no timely objection filed.	No reversible error; proper procedural framework existed.

Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error standard applies only in exceptional circumstances)
PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Santiago, 2012-Ohio-942 (10th Dist. 2012) (plain-error review framework in absence of objections)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (presumption of validity when transcript omitted from record)