In re C.G.R.

2012 Ohio 3690

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 16, 2012
• Docket: 97800
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re C.G.R., 2012-Ohio-3690.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97800

IN RE: C.G.R. A Minor Child [Appeal by Father]

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. CU 05104317

BEFORE: Sweeney, J., Boyle, P.J., and Jones, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 16, 2012 FOR APPELLANT

C.R., Pro Se 6427 Newland Road Cleveland, Ohio 44130

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Joseph C. Young, Esq. Assistant County Prosecutor C.S.E.A. P.O. Box 93894 Cleveland, Ohio 44101-5984

FOR APPELLEE

Danielle Lentine, Pro Se 4524 Broadview Road Cleveland, Ohio 44109 JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, C.R., father of C.G.R. (d.o.b. 5/11/05)1 (hereinafter

“Father”) has appealed, pro se, the juvenile court’s order of December 14, 2011, that

approved the magistrate’s decision that denied Father’s motion to modify custody. For

the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

{¶2} The record reflects that Father moved to modify custody and/or visitation

relative to the Child. Therein, Father petitioned the court for restitution and a change of

the custody arrangement. Father averred that despite the shared parenting order, the Child

has been under his custody since “6/05-present.” Father also filed written objections to

the Magistrate’s Decision dated July 25, 2011, regarding support establishment on the

same grounds. On September 5, 2011, the juvenile court found Father’s objections “well

taken,” sustained them, and returned the matter to the Magistrate for “further

proceedings.”

{¶3} Father’s Motion to Modify Custody was denied by a Magistrate’s Decision

dated September 12, 2011. Father did not file any objections to the September 12, 2011

Magistrate’s Decision, which was adopted by the juvenile court on December 14, 2011,

and is the subject of this appeal.

{¶4} Father’s appellate brief essentially contains a statement of the case, without

1 Referred to hereafter as the “Child.” any argument or law. There is no appellee brief in this record. Consequently, we have no

choice but to dismiss the appeal. App.R. 12 and 16. In doing so, we are not affirming or

otherwise addressing the propriety of the order appealed. We note the juvenile court’s

jurisdiction over child custody and support issues continues until the child reaches

majority. E.g., Calogeras v. Calogeras, 82 Ohio L.Abs. 438, 163 N.E.2d 713, (1959); see

also R.C. 2151.23. Accordingly, the parties are not precluded from pursuing modification

of same in the future.

{¶5} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the matter is remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of

the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

JAMES J. SWEENEY, JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR