{¶ 2} The parties were married in 1994. That same yеar, the parties' minor daughter was born. In 1999, appellee filed a complaint for divorce. In 2001, the trial *2 court entered a divorce decree, ending the parties' marriage. The divorce decree contained a shared parenting plan, which designated bоth parties as residential parents and provided alternating weeks of visitation with each parent.
{¶ 3} In March 2004, the trial court issued a judgment entry designating appellant the residential parent and legal custodian of the parties' daughter. This entry provided that appellee would have visitation with the child on Thursday evenings and on every other weekend.
{¶ 4} In June 2005, the trial court entered a judgment, which modified appellee's visitation with the parties' daughter. The new visitation schedule provided that appellee would have visitation from 9:00 a.m. tо 9:00 p.m. on the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of every other weekend. In addition, the entry provided that appellee's visitation could be extеnded to 9:00 a.m. Friday through 9:00 p.m. Sunday of every other weekend, provided appellee's sister supervised the visits. Finally, the entry stated that aрpellee shall not consume alcohol or any drugs during the visits.
{¶ 5} In July 2005, appellant filed a notice of his intent to relocate to Floridа. In response, in September 2005, the trial court issued a judgment entry regarding appellee's revised visitation with the child. The entry stated, in pertinеnt part:
{¶ 6} "Plaintiff to have companionship one (1) week at Christmas and one (1) week at Easter Break. Visits to be supervised by her sister. Plaintiff tо visit with child anytime she is in Florida. Plaintiff to have companionship for minimum six (6) weeks in the summer unless guardian ad litem (GAL) feels that this would not be in the child's best interеst. Summer visitation to also be supervised. When plaintiff is in Florida she can visit half (1/2) the daytime hours that she is there these visits to be supervised. The *3 provision of 6/23/05 to remain in effect. Plaintiff to notify at least seven (7) days before any trip to Florida. Defendant to provide Plaintiff with school сalendar."
{¶ 7} In February 2006, appellee filed a variety of motions, including a motion to modify the allocation of parental rights and rеsponsibilities. In December 2006, the trial court issued a judgment entry with regard to appellee's motions. The entry did not address the motion to modify the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities. The entry provided, in part:
{¶ 8} "Plaintiff to have a drug and alcohol assessment todаy done by Murphy Lewis Consultant.
{¶ 9} "Matter set for a second pretrial in sixty (60) days. * * * Phone visits to continue however plaintiff shall not talk about dad with child. Plaintiff to visit 12/22/2006 to 12/26/2006 with child sister to accompany her. Phone calls Wednesday and Sunday from 8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m."
{¶ 10} On February 21, 2007, the trial court issued a judgment entry regаrding appellee's anticipated trip to Florida. This entry provided:
{¶ 11} "Plaintiff to notify defendant at least seven (7) days in advance of hеr February visit to Florida. Plaintiff to have day time companionship during her visit. These visits to be most days that she is there. If these visits go all right then the court will consider overnight visits for a visit in late March. Unless defendant or guardian ad litem (GAL) files a motion plaintiff will have overnight visits when she goes to Florida. During аll visits plaintiff shall not consume any alcohol."
{¶ 12} Appellee did not visit with the child in either February or March 2007. She claimed appellant was avoiding her phone calls in an effort to impede visitation. In May 2007, the trial court issued a judgment entry instructing appellee to providе phone *4 records demonstrating her attempts to contact appellant while she was in Florida. The entry provided the court wоuld make an order for summer visitation if the records showed appellee made reasonable efforts to contact appellant. In addition, the entry provided that appellee sign releases to have the records from Murphy's Consultants sent to the cоurt.
{¶ 13} On May 16, 2007, appellee provided the court with the requested phone records. On May 17, 2007, appellant filed a "motion contrary tо phone records," wherein he disputes appellee's phone records, informs the court that his phone records will be avаilable by May 30, 2007, and asks the court for a hearing on the matter.
{¶ 14} On June 12, 2007, the magistrate issued a decision, stating:
{¶ 15} "Plaintiff to have companionshiр from 06/24/2007 to 07/08/2007 and from 07/29/07 to 08/12/2007. These visits to be [here] in Trumbull County, Ohio. Plaintiff to arrange to get child here to begin each visit and Defendant to arrange to get child back at the end of each visit."
{¶ 16} That same day, the trial court issued a judgment entry, which contained the verbatim language as the magistrate's decision. On June 15, 2007, appellant objected to the magistrate's decision. On June 19, 2007, the GAL filed a motion to stay the summer visitation, due tо concerns about appellee's older daughter's boyfriend, who had been indicted for carrying a concealed weaрon.
{¶ 17} On June 20, 2007, the trial court issued a modified judgment entry. This entry provided:
{¶ 18} "During child's visit with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's daughter's boyfriend shall not be in the presence of child. Also, Plaintiff's mоther not to be left alone with minor child and there is to be no alcohol consumption during the visits. *5
{¶ 19} "All other orders from Magistrates decision of 06/12/2007 to remain in effect. [The entry recites the verbatim language contained in the magistrate's decision and trial court's judgment entry, which werе both filed on June 12, 2007.]"
{¶ 20} Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's June 20, 2007 judgment entry with this court. Also, appellant filed а motion to stay the trial court's judgment entry with the trial court. The trial court denied appellant's motion. Next, appellant filed a motiоn to stay the visitation order in this court; however, this court also denied appellant's motion.
{¶ 21} Appellant raises the following assignment of error:
{¶ 22} "The trial court erred in modifying the prior order from supervised to unsupervised companionship without a hearing or testimony to make a determination as to the minor child's best interеst."
{¶ 23} This court has held that when an appellant "cannot be granted effectual relief by a reviewing court, the appeal will be dismissed for mootness." In re Bates (Sept. 28, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-A-0054,
{¶ 24} The trial court's judgmеnt entry only concerned visitation from June 24, 2007 through July 8, 2007 and from July 29, 2007 through August 12, 2007. These time periods have expired. In addition, we note the trial court's judgment entry did not specifically modify a prior order. Nor did the entry pertain to any future visitation after the periods specifically mentioned in the summer of 2007. Since the specified visitation periods have expired, there is no relief this court can provide at this time. *6
{¶ 25} Appellant's assignment of error is moot.
{¶ 26} This appeal is dismissed.
*1COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concur.