In re A.P., 2019 Ohio 139

Father filed to establish paternity of A.P. (born Oct. 2015) and requested custody; paternity was acknowledged but Mother retained custody and Father was given standard parenting time.
Father repeatedly alleged Mother obstructed parenting time and sought contempt and later sought shared parenting/custody modifications; several hearings and magistrate decisions followed.
Father failed to file objections to the magistrate’s decision on the 2018 hearing that denied contempt and custody modification; no transcript was timely filed below.
At the May 2018 hearing, testimony conflicted: Father claimed Mother prevented exchanges and he had little contact since 2016–2017; Mother said Father often failed to appear and she had not been able to contact him.
Father alleged post-decree incidents (assaults, altercations, alcohol, threats with a knife) but provided no competent evidence establishing dates or impact on the child; he produced no evidence of his own housing/income or that the child suffered harm.
The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s findings; on appeal the court limited review to plain error because Father failed to object, and affirmed the juvenile court’s order.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother willfully obstructed parenting time (contempt)	Mother willfully denied Father his court-ordered parenting time and contempt is warranted	Father did not preserve objections; magistrate credited Mother’s testimony and evidence was conflicting	No plain error; juvenile court did not abuse discretion in denying contempt
Whether there was a change in circumstances warranting custody modification	Father asserted post-decree incidents (assaults, alcohol, threats) constitute a material change requiring custody change	Father failed to object below; evidence lacked dates, corroboration, and proof of harm to child; Father produced no proof of his fitness/resources	No plain error; court did not abuse discretion — Father failed to show a qualifying change in circumstances or that benefits of transfer outweighed harm

In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484 (1st Dist. 1998) (failure to object to magistrate decision waives appellate review except for plain error)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is disfavored and applies only in exceptional circumstances)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain error requires an obvious defect)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1959) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)
Chavez-Juarez v. State, 185 Ohio App.3d 189 (2d Dist. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for contempt proceedings)