[Cite as Sharp v. Richmond,
2025-Ohio-2926.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
KELLY CHRISTINE SHARP, CASE NO. 2024-L-094
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Civil Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division
JOSHUA ALLEN RICHMOND,
Defendant-Appellant. Trial Court No. 2013 SE 01181
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: August 18, 2025
Judgment: Affirmed
Lawrence R. Hupertz, 37265 Euclid Avenue, Willoughby, OH 44094 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Kelley R. Tauring, Stafford Law Co., LPA, North Point Tower, 1001 Lakeside Avenue,
Suite 1300, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Joshua Allen Richmond (“Father”), appeals from the Lake
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, overruling Father’s objections and
affirming its judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision to terminate the parties’ shared
parenting order and grant custody of his minor daughter to appellee, Kelly Christine Sharp
(“Mother”). Mother did not file an answer brief. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶2} The parties have two children, a son, “N.L.” (d.o.b. October 6, 2006); and a
daughter, “K.L.” (d.o.b. March 22, 2010). The trial court adopted the parties’ shared
parenting plan on March 22, 2016. In an agreed judgment entry on March 12, 2018, the
plan was modified to designate Mother as the residential parent of K.L. and grant Father
parenting time and, conversely, to designate Father as the residential parent of N.L. and
grant Mother parenting time. The parenting time was scheduled pursuant to Local Rule
5 of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.
{¶3} The instant appeal arises from judgments on three motions Father filed: a
motion for visitation on April 17, 2023; an amended motion for visitation, contempt,
neglect, and parent alienation on April 19, 2023; and a motion for emergency custody of
K.L. on June 26, 2023. A one-day trial was held before a magistrate on August 1, 2024.
The magistrate also conducted in camera interviews with the children.
{¶4} The magistrate issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 3,
2024. In a thorough decision, the magistrate found the parties have “little to no ability to
communicate”; they were not following the court-ordered parenting time schedule prior to
Father filing his motions; their animosity towards each other not only impacted the
children’s relationship with their parents, but also the children’s relationship with each
other; and they have not made joint decisions as it relates to the children. While Father
blamed Mother for missing his parenting time between November 2022 and April 2023,
the evidence revealed he never attempted to pick up K.L. for his parenting time.
{¶5} The magistrate made conclusions of law after analyzing whether the parties’
shared parenting plan should be terminated pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c) and
considering the best interests of the children using the factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)
and (F)(2). The magistrate concluded it was in K.L.’s best interest that Mother be granted
custody and that Father be granted parenting time because K.L. is doing very well in
Mother’s care. K.L. wants to continue residing with Mother, and she is engrained in her
PAGE 2 OF 8
Case No. 2024-L-094
community, which includes schooling and participation in extracurricular activities. The
magistrate further concluded it is in N.L.’s best interest that Father be granted custody
and that Mother be granted parenting time. N.L. turned 18 in October 2024 and wants to
continue residing with Father.
{¶6} On Father’s motion for contempt, the magistrate found Father failed to meet
his burden of proof to present clear and convincing evidence that Mother was in contempt
of court.
{¶7} The following day, October 4, 2024, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s
decision. On October 23, 2024, Father filed his preliminary objections and a motion for
leave to supplement his objections after the transcript was filed. On November 25, 2024,
the trial court considered Father’s preliminary objections and motion for leave to
supplement. The court found that pursuant to Juv.R. 40, Father was required to file a
transcript within 30 days after filing objections. The court found the 30 days to file a
transcript had expired, a transcript was not filed, and no extension to file the transcript
was requested. The court overruled Father’s objections, found Father’s motion for leave
to supplement his objections moot, and affirmed its October 4, 2024 judgment entry
adopting the October 3, 2024 magistrate’s decision. Father filed a transcript on
December 23, 2024, the same day he filed his notice of appeal.
{¶8} Father now appeals, raising one assignment of error:
{¶9} “The trial court’s designation of the appellee as the residential parent and
legal custodian of the minor child upon the termination of the shared parenting plan should
be reversed.”
PAGE 3 OF 8
Case No. 2024-L-094
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Father contends the trial court erred in its
custody determination of K.L. because the court improperly overruled his objections and
disregarded the evidence at trial. Father contends the trial court’s judgment should be
reversed, and he should be designated the residential parent and legal custodian of K.L.
{¶11} Decisions involving the custody of children are accorded great deference
on review. Bates-Brown v. Brown, 2007-Ohio-5203, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.), citing Miller v.
Miller,
37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988). Thus, any judgment of the trial court involving the
allocation of parental rights and responsibilities will not be disturbed absent a showing of
an abuse of discretion.
Id.
{¶12} An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise sound,
reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62 (2d
Dist.), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004). “[W]here the issue on review has
been confided to the discretion of the trial court, the mere fact that the reviewing court
would have reached a different result is not enough, without more, to find error.” Id. at
¶ 67.
{¶13} At the outset, we note that we are bound by a limited review of Father’s
assignment of error because he failed to timely file a transcript in the trial court. Nor did
Father file a motion for an extension of time to do so, as properly found by the lower court.
The motion filed by Father to supplement his objections was not, as appellate counsel
suggested at the oral hearing, a substitute for a motion for additional time to file the
transcript.
{¶14} Pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d), “Action on Objections,” which mirrors the
language of Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d), “If one or more objections to a magistrate’s decision are
PAGE 4 OF 8
Case No. 2024-L-094
timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections. In ruling on objections, the court shall
undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the
magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.”
{¶15} In relevant part, Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii), “Objection to Magistrate’s Factual
Finding; Transcript or Affidavit,” provides:
An objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically designated as
a finding of fact under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a
transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that
finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available. . . .
The objecting party shall file the transcript or affidavit with the court within
thirty days after filing objections unless the court extends the time in writing
for preparation of the transcript or other good cause. If a party files timely
objections prior to the date on which a transcript is prepared, the party may
seek leave of court to supplement the objections.
{¶16} “When an objecting party fails to timely file a transcript or affidavit with their
objections, a trial court can adopt the magistrate’s findings without further consideration,
and the objecting party cannot challenge the merits of the factual findings on appeal.” In
re D.S.R., 2012-Ohio-5823, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.). “If the record contains a transcript of the
evidentiary hearing before a magistrate, but if that transcript was not filed until after the
objections were ruled upon, it was not before the trial court and cannot be considered on
appeal.”
Id. See also In re K.R.J.C.,
2024-Ohio-632, ¶ 26 (11th Dist.) (“failure to timely
procure the transcript for the trial court’s consideration in ruling on objections precludes
this court from considering whether the magistrate’s factual findings were supported”);
Starr v. Statler-Houchin,
2024-Ohio-4628, ¶ 46 (3d Dist.) (failure to file a transcript
precluded consideration of whether magistrate’s best-interest findings were supported by
a substantial amount of competent, credible evidence); Brown v. Brown,
2001 WL
1134861, *2 (Sept. 20, 2001 8th Dist.) (“Without having the benefit of the transcript of the
PAGE 5 OF 8
Case No. 2024-L-094
hearing, the trial court was prevented from reviewing testimony presented which formed
the basis of the magistrate’s decision.”).
{¶17} Father’s arguments concern the evidence presented at trial, which we are
not permitted to review due to his failure to timely file a transcript. Insofar as Father
challenges the magistrate’s analysis of the best interest factors pursuant to R.C.
3109.04(F)(1) and (2), it is apparent from the magistrate’s decision that the magistrate
reviewed the applicable factors. Further, the list of factors found in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) is
non-exhaustive, and the court was free to allocate greater weight to the children’s wishes
due to their ages. “The trial court ‘has discretion in determining which factors are
relevant,’ and ‘each factor may not necessarily carry the same weight or have the same
relevance, depending upon the facts before the trial court.’” Krill v. Krill, 2014-Ohio-2577,
¶ 29 (3d Dist.), quoting Brammer v. Brammer,
2013-Ohio-2843, ¶ 41 (3d Dist.). In
addition, “there is no requirement that the trial court set out an analysis for each of the
factors in its judgment entry, so long as the judgment entry is supported by some
competent, credible evidence.”
Id. “‘[A]bsent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court
will presume the trial court considered all of the relevant “best interest” factors listed in
R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).’”
Id., quoting Brammer v. Meachum,
2011-Ohio-519, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.).
{¶18} Based upon Father’s failure to comply with Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii), we
determine the trial court properly overruled his objections and adopted the magistrate’s
decision. The trial court was required to accept the magistrate’s findings of fact as true
and was permitted to examine only the legal conclusions based on those facts since the
transcript was untimely filed. D.S.R. at ¶ 20. The magistrate’s decision thoroughly set
PAGE 6 OF 8
Case No. 2024-L-094
forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, and there is no evidence in the record that
shows the trial court failed to conduct an independent review.
{¶19} Finding Father’s assignment of error to be without merit, the judgment of
the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
SCOTT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
PAGE 7 OF 8
Case No. 2024-L-094
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error
is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Lake
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE MATT LYNCH
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
concurs
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 8 OF 8
Case No. 2024-L-094
