In re K.L.F.
K.D., pro se
Kathleen W. Adams, 8310 Princeton Glendale Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellee
M. POWELL, P.J.
{1} Appellant (“Mother“) appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of the parties’ children to appellee (“Father“).
{2} Mother and Father are the parents of a seven-year-old daughter (“Daughter“) and a six-year-old son (“Son“). The parties were never married to one another. Father
{3} The parties’ relationship was troubled and ultimately ended. Mother believed Father was unfaithful and abused drugs and alcohol. Father has at least one OVI conviction and was charged twice with OVI. Due to Mother‘s marijuana use during the pregnancy, Son was born testing positive for marijuana. During the parties’ relationship, Mother moved back to Tennessee at least twice; Father either accompanied Mother or eventually joined her in Tennessee. On both occasions, the parties stayed in Tennessee for a while then returned to Ohio. In 2018, Father filed a complaint for custody of the children which he dismissed after the parties “agreed to work it out.” On April 16, 2019, Father filed the instant complaint for custody of the children. Three days later, Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate to Jacksonville, Florida. Mother did not move to Florida. Instead, she permanently relocated to Gallatin, Tennessee.
{4} A custody hearing was held before a magistrate in October 2019. In a decision filed on December 11, 2019, the magistrate granted legal custody of the children to Father and parenting time to Mother.1 As this was an initial custody determination and
Mother was the residential parent by virtue of
{5} Mother filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. Following a hearing on the objections on June 30, 2020, the juvenile court overruled Mother‘s objections and adopted the magistrate‘s decision.
{6} Mother now appeals, pro se, the juvenile court‘s decision, raising two assignments of error.
{7} In her two assignments of error, Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in awarding custody of the children to Father. Mother asserts that testimony at the custody hearing plainly shows that Father abuses alcohol and has sexually abused two women, witnesses with information on these issues should have been subpoenaed, and the juvenile court erred in not investigating the sexual abuse allegations against Father and his alcohol abuse. Mother also asserts that the award of custody to Father violates the Indian Child Welfare Act because both children are members of an Alaskan Indian tribe. Lastly, Mother references the closure of a children services agency‘s case concerning her family. The
{8} We are precluded from reviewing the issues raised in Mother‘s assignments of error.
{9} Objections to a magistrate‘s decision must be “specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection.”
{10} Although Mother filed objections to the magistrate‘s December 11, 2019 decision, she did not specifically object to the magistrate‘s best interest findings, did not raise any of the issues she now raises on appeal, and did not claim plain error on appeal. Rather, her objection was simply a nondescript statement asserting she had “noticed errors” in the magistrate‘s decision. It is well recognized that the failure to draw a trial court‘s attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal. In re J.F. at ¶ 15. Mother is therefore precluded from raising these issues on appeal and from challenging the juvenile court‘s adoption of the magistrate‘s findings. Id.; In re D.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-01-018, 209-Ohio-2805, ¶ 30.
{11} We recognize that Mother was acting pro se when she filed her objections to
{12} Mother‘s two assignments of error are overruled.
{13} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.