In re K.A.U.

Opinion

[Cite as In re K.A.U., 2026-Ohio-2859.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

IN RE: : CASE NO. CA2025-12-142 K.A.U. : OPINION AND : JUDGMENT ENTRY 7/27/2026 :

:

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JS 2025-0060

Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency, and Julie K. Effler, for appellee.

Father, pro se.

____________ OPINION

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Father, appeals from the order of the Butler County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, adopting the decision of the magistrate and ordering Butler CA2025-12-142

that he pay Mother child support.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Kadja Monae ("Mother") and Tony Ubri ("Father") are the parents of K.A.U.,

born May 2, 2024. The parties were never married. Mother applied to the Butler County

Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) for Title IV-D services and for the

establishment of a child support order.

{¶ 3} After reviewing the matter, CSEA determined that a child support order

requiring Father to pay support to Mother was appropriate and an administrative child

support hearing was scheduled to determine the amount of support. Both parties received

notice of the hearing. The hearing was conducted by telephone before a CSEA

administrative hearing officer, with both Mother and Father participating, although

Father's participation was brief.

{¶ 4} On August 26, 2025, CSEA issued an administrative child support order

pursuant to R.C. 3111.81. Under R.C. 3111.84, either parent had 14 days from the

issuance of the administrative order to file objections in juvenile court. Neither parent filed

objections within that period.

{¶ 5} On October 9, 2025, Father filed a Motion for Leave to File Late Response

to Administrative Findings/Order as well as a Complaint for Court Review of

Administrative Findings/Order. Father asserted that the income information used to

calculate the administrative child support order was inaccurate.

{¶ 6} A hearing on Father's filings was held before a Butler County Juvenile Court

magistrate on December 3, 2025. Both Mother and Father appeared and participated. In

a decision issued the same day, the magistrate granted Father's request for additional

time but denied his objections to the administrative support order and adopted the same

as an order of the juvenile court.

-2- Butler CA2025-12-142

{¶ 7} On December 5, 2025, Father filed a motion to set aside the magistrate's

order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because he had not been properly served,

rendering the judgment void. In a judgment entry dated December 11, 2025, the juvenile

court construed Father's motion as an objection to the magistrate's decision, found the

objection not well taken, overruled it, and adopted the magistrate's December 3, 2025

decision as an order of the court. In support of its decision, the juvenile court found that

Father filed his Complaint for Court Review of Administrative Findings/Order on October

9, 2025 and that he was personally served on that same date with notice of the December

3, 2025 hearing, which he personally signed and dated.

II. Legal Analysis

{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 9} THE COURT ERRED BY ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

AND PERMITTING ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS WHERE THE

COURT LACKED PERSONAL JURISDICTION DUE TO IMPROPER SERVICE OF

PROCESS.

{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, Father asserts that the trial court's orders to

withhold income and enforce the administrative support order were issued prior to any

valid service establishing the trial court's personal jurisdiction and therefore are void.

Father also asserts that the juvenile court adopted the magistrate's decision without

addressing this lack of personal jurisdiction. However, Father never filed a transcript of

the hearing before the magistrate (nor of the prior administrative hearing) with the juvenile

court in accordance with Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii) which might have addressed the issue.

-3- Butler CA2025-12-142

Accordingly, there is no transcript in the appellate record.1

{¶ 11} "'Where portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors

are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus has

no choice but to presume the regularity or validity of the lower court's proceedings and

affirm.'" In re B.G., 2024-Ohio-1731, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.), quoting Knapp v. Edwards

Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). On appeal, Father cites no record evidence

showing improper service and relies only on his unsupported assertions.

{¶ 12} The record before us reflects that Father received notice of the

administrative child support hearing and he appeared and participated, if only briefly. After

the administrative support order was issued, Father did not immediately file objections,

but on October 9, 2025, filed a Motion for Leave to File Late Response to Administrative

Findings/Order. In that filing, Father stated "THE UNDERSIGNED IS NOT MAKING A

GENERAL APPEARANCE IN COURT VOLUNTARILY BUT IS MAKING A SPECIAL

APPEARANCE REQUIRING THE COURT TO PROVE IT HAS PERSONAL

JURISDICTION OF THE BODY OF TONY UBRI" [sic]. On the same day, Father filed a

Complaint for Court Review of Administrative Findings/Order along with his objections to

the administrative support order. Father subsequently appeared and participated in the

hearing on those filings on December 3, 2025. The transcript of those proceedings has

not been made a part of the record on appeal, therefore we presume regularity in the

proceedings. B.G. at ¶ 27.

1. We note that on March 16, 2026—after having already filed his appellate brief and after CSEA filed its answer—Father filed a notice with this court that he had requested and paid for a transcript of the December 3, 2025 hearing before the magistrate, and that it "is being filed with the Clerk of the Butler County Juvenile Court and transmitted to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals to be made part of the official record on appeal." Nevertheless, this transcript was not filed with the trial court for its consideration when it reviewed Father's objections to the magistrate's decision. This court cannot consider a transcript that the trial court had no opportunity to review. Suwareh v. Nwankwo, 2026-Ohio-2225, ¶ 15, fn. 2(12th Dist.); In re N.B., 2026-Ohio-2612, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). -4- Butler CA2025-12-142

{¶ 13} In reviewing the magistrate's decision, the trial court found that "[Father]

filed the Complaint for Court Review of Administrative Findings/Order on October 9, 2025

and was personally served with Notice of Hearing with the hearing date of December 3,

2025 on October 9, 2025 which he personally signed and dated." Thus, the trial court

concluded that Father had submitted himself to the trial court's jurisdiction. Moreover, no

transcript was provided for the trial court's review and "[a] trial court is not required to give

preclusive effect to a movant's sworn statement that [he] did not receive service of

process when the record contains no indication that service was ineffectual." Bank of New

York Mellon v. Maxfield, 2016-Ohio-2990, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 14} Absent a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate to indicate

otherwise, we must presume that the trial court's finding was proper and that Father

submitted himself to the personal jurisdiction of the Court by filing his complaint and then

being personally served with notice of the hearing. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 2010-Ohio-

404, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.).

{¶ 15} Father's first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 16} Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶ 17} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTING

AND INCONSISTENT CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ORDERS, RESULTING IN

VIOLATIONS OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

{¶ 18} In his second assignment of error, Father argues that he was denied due

process because of what he characterizes as "irreconcilable enforcement directives."

Specifically, Father points to a Notice to Income Provider to Terminate Withholding dated

December 8, 2025, followed by income-withholding orders dated January 2 and January

5, 2026. Those orders, however, postdate the proceedings from which Father appeals

and are not part of the record before us. In addition, Father did not raise any issue

-5- Butler CA2025-12-142

concerning allegedly conflicting enforcement directives in the juvenile court. His motion

to set aside the magistrate's decision, which the trial court construed as an objection to

the magistrate's decision, challenged only personal jurisdiction. Father therefore may not

raise the issue of alleged "irreconcilable enforcement directives" for the first time on

appeal. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mullins, 2014-Ohio-4761, ¶ 33 (12th Dist.) ("it

is axiomatic that a party cannot raise new issues or legal theories for the first time on

appeal and failure to raise an issue before the trial court results in waiver of that issue for

appellate purposes"). Even so, Father's appellate brief never establishes how these

orders are irreconcilable.

{¶ 19} Father's second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 20} Assignment of Error No. 3:

{¶ 21} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY OVERRULING APPELLANT'S

OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REQUIRED BY CIV.R. 53.

{¶ 22} In his third assignment of error, Father argues the trial court failed to

conduct an independent review of the record as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) when it

overruled his objections to the magistrate's decision. However, as this is a juvenile court

proceeding, the parallel rule of Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) applies. Here, the juvenile court's

December 11, 2025 order specifically states that a review of the record was completed.

Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) does not require a juvenile court to cite any specific portion of the

record to demonstrate that it has completed an independent review, nevertheless in

resolving the jurisdictional issue, the trial court stated "[Father] filed the Complaint for

Court Review of Administrative Findings/Order on October 9, 2025 and was personally

served with Notice of Hearing with the hearing date of December 3, 2025 on October 9,

2025 which he personally signed and dated." As we stated above, Father only objected

-6- Butler CA2025-12-142

to the juvenile court's personal jurisdiction and did not file transcripts with the juvenile

court of the hearing before the magistrate or the prior administrative hearing. There was

little else for the trial court to consider for its review.

{¶ 23} Father's third assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 24} Assignment of Error No. 4:

{¶ 25} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADOPTING CHILD SUPPORT

CALCULATIONS BASED ON IMPROPER AND UNSUPPORTED INCOME

ASSUMPTIONS, RESULTING IN AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND AN UNFAIR

DETERMINATION.

{¶ 26} In his fourth assignment of error, Father argues that the child support order

is not supported by competent credible evidence and should be vacated because it relies

upon false and unsupported income assumptions, including imputing business income

that he did not earn. However, while Father raised this issue in his October 9, 2025

Complaint for Court Review of Administrative Findings/Order, he did not preserve any

such argument in his motion to set aside the magistrate's decision which the trial court

interpreted as an objection to the magistrate's decision.

{¶ 27} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that "[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a

party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal

conclusion . . . unless the party has objected to that finding as required by Juv.R.

40(D)(3)(b)." This waiver under the rule embodies the long-recognized principle that the

failure to draw the 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 K.P.R., 2011-Ohio-

6114, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). This court previously ruled that unless the appellant argues a "claim

of plain error," the appellant has waived the claimed errors not objected to below. Id. at ¶

10. Father has not argued a claim of plain error, thus these claimed errors are waived.

-7- Butler CA2025-12-142

Even if these errors were not waived, we have no transcript to review and cannot discern

any plain error.

{¶ 28} Father's fourth assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 29} For the reasons outlined above, and having now overruled each of Father's

four assigned errors, Father's appeal is denied.

{¶ 30} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

-8- Butler CA2025-12-142

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge

/s/ Robin N. Piper, Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

-9-