[Cite as Tirado v. Tirado, 2025-Ohio-3170.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
EMILY MARGARET TIRADO, n.k.a. : APPEAL NO. C-240666 EMILY KRANZ, TRIAL NO. DR-2101456 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
JOSHUA R. TIRADO, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 9/5/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Tirado v. Tirado, 2025-Ohio-3170.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
EMILY MARGARET TIRADO, n.k.a. : APPEAL NO. C-240666 EMILY KRANZ, TRIAL NO. DR-2101456 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : OPINION JOSHUA R. TIRADO, : Defendant-Appellant. :
Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 5, 2025
Lane, Felix, & Raisbeck Co., LPA, Jeffrey A. Felix, Stephenie N. Lape, PLLC, and Stephenie N. Lape, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Joshua R. Tirado, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} In this appeal, defendant-appellant Joshua R. Tirado (“Father”) raises
a variety of constitutional issues with the trial court’s judgment. That judgment
terminated an existing shared-parenting plan between Father and plaintiff-appellee
Emily Margaret Tirado, n.k.a. Emily Kranz (“Mother”), granted Mother sole custody
of their three children, and reduced Father’s parenting time.
{¶2} But Father failed to file a hearing transcript and failed to develop legal
arguments in support of his contentions. Accordingly, we overrule his two assignments
of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶3} During their almost-13-year marriage, Mother and Father welcomed
three children into the world. Their oldest daughter, A.T., was born in 2008. Their
second daughter, S.T., was born in 2010. And their son, M.T., was born in 2011.
{¶4} In 2021, Mother and Father petitioned to dissolve their marriage, and
the trial court issued a decree later that year. The parties agreed that Father would pay
$1,211.92 each month for child support as well as half of all healthcare expenses
exceeding $388.70. The shared-parenting plan designated Mother the children’s
residential parent for school purposes and divided the children’s time between Mother
and Father on a rotating three-week schedule, which matched Father’s work schedule.
The children were to spend 13 days with Mother and eight days with Father. Sometime
in 2023, the parties modified the parenting schedule, and Father had the children
every week from Wednesday until Saturday afternoon.
{¶5} In April 2023, Mother agreed to forgive Father’s child-support
arrearage. In December 2023, Father moved to reduce his child-support obligation or
alternatively, for child support from Mother. Apparently, Father lost his firefighter job.
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶6} In January 2024, Mother moved for an order finding Father in
contempt of court for nonpayment of child support, medical expenses, and school fees.
The next month, Mother moved to terminate the shared-parenting plan, or
alternatively, modify Father’s parenting time, because of a “breathing issue” that M.T.
had experienced when he was with Father.
{¶7} Before the hearing on Mother’s motions, the magistrate ordered Mother
and Father to consent to an evaluation by a court-appointed custody evaluator. The
custody evaluator required access to “any records related to the child(ren), and/or
parents, to confirm with any and all professionals who may provide information
relative to said minor child(ren) and/or parents with respect to issues pending before
this Court without the consent of the child and/or parents.” Neither party objected.
{¶8} In August 2024, the magistrate lowered Father’s child-support
payments to $243.04 per month, citing Father’s job loss. Weeks later, Father moved
to modify the shared-parenting plan and opposed Mother’s notice of intent to move to
Indiana.
Contempt and custody hearings
{¶9} The trial court held hearings on Mother’s and Father’s motions in
September and October 2024. Those transcripts are not in the record, but the parties’
evidence is in the record.
{¶10} Father’s evidence includes emails with the Hamilton County Domestic
Relations Court’s Dispute Resolution Department in which Father claims that Mother
“decided to block [Father]” and was “forcing [him] to communicate through” their
children. After the custody-evaluation interview, Father emailed the custody evaluator
about what he perceived as “a sexist bias displayed.” His other evidence consists of
communications with the Child Support Enforcement Agency, a transcript of Father’s
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
administrative hearing on his employment with the Norwood Fire Department, and a
pension-benefit statement.
{¶11} Mother’s evidence includes contentious messages between Mother and
Father, and messages between Father and Stepfather.
{¶12} M.T.’s medical records reveal that in January 2024, Father brought
M.T. to his pediatrician’s office, where M.T. was “in obvious distress with extremely
labored breathing.” Medical staff (a nurse and two doctors) told Father that M.T. was
in significant respiratory distress and needed a higher level of care at Cincinnati
Children’s Hospital. But Father responded that M.T. did not need to go to Children’s
Hospital and that Father could not afford ambulance or hospital bills. Instead, Father
insisted upon a “steroid prescription.” Medical staff called 911. After an ambulance
arrived, Father insisted that M.T. did not need to go to Children’s and, as power lines
had been blown down, EMS had “better things to do with their time.” But Father
eventually allowed an “EMS team member” to evaluate M.T.—that EMS team member
told Father that M.T. would benefit from further care at Children’s Hospital. Father
agreed to have EMS transport M.T. to Children’s Hospital.
{¶13} The custody evaluation report in the record includes a recommendation
to terminate the shared-parenting plan and reduce Father’s parenting time. The
custody evaluator concluded that Mother and Father “display a difficult relationship
with one another[,] struggle to productively communicate,” and rely on “the children
as messengers.” This relationship “fuels conflict and place[s] stress on the children.”
The custody evaluator noted that Mother falsely accused Father of not providing meals
to the children and inappropriately burdened the children when she relied on
Stepfather to communicate with Father. As for Father, his relationship with the
children is amicable but Father was evasive during the interview and evaluation
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Tirado v. Tirado, 2025-Ohio-3170.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
EMILY MARGARET TIRADO, n.k.a. : APPEAL NO. C-240666 EMILY KRANZ, TRIAL NO. DR-2101456 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
JOSHUA R. TIRADO, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 9/5/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Tirado v. Tirado, 2025-Ohio-3170.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
EMILY MARGARET TIRADO, n.k.a. : APPEAL NO. C-240666 EMILY KRANZ, TRIAL NO. DR-2101456 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : OPINION JOSHUA R. TIRADO, : Defendant-Appellant. :
Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 5, 2025
Lane, Felix, & Raisbeck Co., LPA, Jeffrey A. Felix, Stephenie N. Lape, PLLC, and Stephenie N. Lape, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Joshua R. Tirado, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} In this appeal, defendant-appellant Joshua R. Tirado (“Father”) raises
a variety of constitutional issues with the trial court’s judgment. That judgment
terminated an existing shared-parenting plan between Father and plaintiff-appellee
Emily Margaret Tirado, n.k.a. Emily Kranz (“Mother”), granted Mother sole custody
of their three children, and reduced Father’s parenting time.
{¶2} But Father failed to file a hearing transcript and failed to develop legal
arguments in support of his contentions. Accordingly, we overrule his two assignments
of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶3} During their almost-13-year marriage, Mother and Father welcomed
three children into the world. Their oldest daughter, A.T., was born in 2008. Their
second daughter, S.T., was born in 2010. And their son, M.T., was born in 2011.
{¶4} In 2021, Mother and Father petitioned to dissolve their marriage, and
the trial court issued a decree later that year. The parties agreed that Father would pay
$1,211.92 each month for child support as well as half of all healthcare expenses
exceeding $388.70. The shared-parenting plan designated Mother the children’s
residential parent for school purposes and divided the children’s time between Mother
and Father on a rotating three-week schedule, which matched Father’s work schedule.
The children were to spend 13 days with Mother and eight days with Father. Sometime
in 2023, the parties modified the parenting schedule, and Father had the children
every week from Wednesday until Saturday afternoon.
{¶5} In April 2023, Mother agreed to forgive Father’s child-support
arrearage. In December 2023, Father moved to reduce his child-support obligation or
alternatively, for child support from Mother. Apparently, Father lost his firefighter job.
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶6} In January 2024, Mother moved for an order finding Father in
contempt of court for nonpayment of child support, medical expenses, and school fees.
The next month, Mother moved to terminate the shared-parenting plan, or
alternatively, modify Father’s parenting time, because of a “breathing issue” that M.T.
had experienced when he was with Father.
{¶7} Before the hearing on Mother’s motions, the magistrate ordered Mother
and Father to consent to an evaluation by a court-appointed custody evaluator. The
custody evaluator required access to “any records related to the child(ren), and/or
parents, to confirm with any and all professionals who may provide information
relative to said minor child(ren) and/or parents with respect to issues pending before
this Court without the consent of the child and/or parents.” Neither party objected.
{¶8} In August 2024, the magistrate lowered Father’s child-support
payments to $243.04 per month, citing Father’s job loss. Weeks later, Father moved
to modify the shared-parenting plan and opposed Mother’s notice of intent to move to
Indiana.
Contempt and custody hearings
{¶9} The trial court held hearings on Mother’s and Father’s motions in
September and October 2024. Those transcripts are not in the record, but the parties’
evidence is in the record.
{¶10} Father’s evidence includes emails with the Hamilton County Domestic
Relations Court’s Dispute Resolution Department in which Father claims that Mother
“decided to block [Father]” and was “forcing [him] to communicate through” their
children. After the custody-evaluation interview, Father emailed the custody evaluator
about what he perceived as “a sexist bias displayed.” His other evidence consists of
communications with the Child Support Enforcement Agency, a transcript of Father’s
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
administrative hearing on his employment with the Norwood Fire Department, and a
pension-benefit statement.
{¶11} Mother’s evidence includes contentious messages between Mother and
Father, and messages between Father and Stepfather.
{¶12} M.T.’s medical records reveal that in January 2024, Father brought
M.T. to his pediatrician’s office, where M.T. was “in obvious distress with extremely
labored breathing.” Medical staff (a nurse and two doctors) told Father that M.T. was
in significant respiratory distress and needed a higher level of care at Cincinnati
Children’s Hospital. But Father responded that M.T. did not need to go to Children’s
Hospital and that Father could not afford ambulance or hospital bills. Instead, Father
insisted upon a “steroid prescription.” Medical staff called 911. After an ambulance
arrived, Father insisted that M.T. did not need to go to Children’s and, as power lines
had been blown down, EMS had “better things to do with their time.” But Father
eventually allowed an “EMS team member” to evaluate M.T.—that EMS team member
told Father that M.T. would benefit from further care at Children’s Hospital. Father
agreed to have EMS transport M.T. to Children’s Hospital.
{¶13} The custody evaluation report in the record includes a recommendation
to terminate the shared-parenting plan and reduce Father’s parenting time. The
custody evaluator concluded that Mother and Father “display a difficult relationship
with one another[,] struggle to productively communicate,” and rely on “the children
as messengers.” This relationship “fuels conflict and place[s] stress on the children.”
The custody evaluator noted that Mother falsely accused Father of not providing meals
to the children and inappropriately burdened the children when she relied on
Stepfather to communicate with Father. As for Father, his relationship with the
children is amicable but Father was evasive during the interview and evaluation
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
process—Father “did not sign the provided releases for his mental health provider.” In
the interview, he “struggled to control his voice and use appropriate language.”
{¶14} The trial court granted Mother’s request to relocate to Indiana. Then,
on November 1, 2024, the trial court issued a decision terminating the shared-
parenting plan and “designating Mother as the sole residential parent and legal
custodian of the children.” In an accompanying standard parenting order, the trial
court reduced Father’s parenting time to Wednesday nights and alternate weekends.
II. Analysis
{¶15} On appeal, in two assignments of error, Father raises a variety of
constitutional issues related to the hearing and the trial court’s judgment.
A. Father’s arguments are unreviewable without a transcript
{¶16} In his first assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court
violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution when it terminated the shared-parenting plan and granted
Mother full custody of their three children. He also appears to argue that terminating
the shared-parenting plan was contrary to the children’s best interest.
{¶17} But Father failed to file a transcript of the hearing. Our review is limited
to the record. Edje v. Holmes, 2024-Ohio-1663, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.). Under App.R. 9(B),
the appealing party must “order from the reporter a complete transcript or a transcript
of the parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary
for inclusion in the record.” Appellants carry the burden of demonstrating error and
must do so by referencing relevant portions of the record and providing appropriate
transcripts that demonstrate error. Estate of Nicolas Fite v. Univ. Hosp., 2004-Ohio-
1266, ¶ 5 (1st Dist.). When an appealing party fails to file transcripts necessary for this
court to resolve the assigned errors, we cannot review whether error exists and we have
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
“no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings.” Id.
{¶18} Without a transcript, we have no way of knowing what the trial court
said at the hearing, if Father objected and presented his argument to the trial court, or
what the trial court said in response. See Jenkins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
2013-Ohio-1142, ¶ 34 (10th Dist.). Therefore, we have no choice but to presume that
the trial court’s proceedings were valid.
B. Father did not develop cognizable legal arguments
{¶19} App.R. 16(A)(7) requires appellants to make “[a]n argument containing
the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for
review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities,
statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.” It is not this court’s role to
“‘create an argument in support of an assignment of error where an appellant fails to
develop one.’” Vorhees v. Anderson Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2024-Ohio-4459,
¶ 50 (1st Dist.), quoting Fontain v. Sandhu, 2021-Ohio-2750, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.).
1. First Amendment
{¶20} Father claims that the trial court judge admitted to “being sexist” after
Stepfather forgot his daughter’s birthday at the hearing. According to Father, this
admission reveals the inherent gender biases in parenting and custody cases. Indeed,
he claims that the custody evaluator recommended terminating Father’s legal custody
because Father is “a man.” And the trial court “rubber stamped the decision of the
social worker.” To Father, his custody was terminated due to “the stereotypical sexist
outcome to custody decisions across the United States.”
{¶21} But Father does not develop his legal argument. Under his first
assignment of error, Father’s First Amendment argument reads, “1st Amendment-
Sex=male. [Trial court judge] stated she is sexist.” This provides no reasons describing
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
how the trial court’s supposed sexism violated his First Amendment rights. He cited
no legal authority, other than the First Amendment itself. He provided no citations to
the record showing First Amendment violations. On this record and lack of argument,
Father cannot prove that the trial court violated his First Amendment rights.
2. Sixth Amendment
{¶22} Father raises two Sixth Amendment claims. First, he argues that the
trial court violated his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment when it
continued the matter in progress to accommodate the custody evaluator’s alleged
defiance of a subpoena. Second, he maintains that the trial court denied him the right
to face his accusers because M.T.’s pediatricians did not testify.
{¶23} The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . . [and] to be confronted
with the witnesses against him.” Child-custody matters are civil. See C.F. L.W. v. L.B.,
2010-Ohio-2796, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.). Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and to
confront witnesses do not apply in civil cases. See id., see also Gallaugher v. Holmes
Surgical Assocs., Inc., 2011-Ohio-1794, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.). Thus, Father had no rights
under the Sixth Amendment to violate.
3. Fourteenth Amendment
{¶24} Father appears to argue that the trial court’s decision infringed on his
constitutional rights as a parent. Of course, “[a] parent’s right to the custody of their
child is essential and paramount.” In re D.V., 2022-Ohio-1024, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.).
Historically, “freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental
liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455
U.S. 745, 753 (1982). But those rights are not absolute—a child’s best interest must
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
always govern a trial court’s custody determination. See Siegel v. Siegel, 2015-Ohio-
1710, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.), citing R.C. 3109.04(B)(1).
{¶25} Father contends that the trial court acted contrary to the children’s
interest when it terminated the shared-parenting plan. He cites his testimony as proof
that the trial court’s decision should be reversed. He argues that no witnesses testified
against him, M.T. has an individualized education plan at his current school, and he
lost custody of his children despite doing “nothing wrong or illegal.”
{¶26} Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(c), the trial court “may terminate a prior final
shared parenting decree that includes a shared parenting plan approved under [R.C.
3109.04](D)(1)(a)(i) . . . upon the request of one or both of the parents or whenever it
determines that shared parenting is not in the best interest of the children.” Said
differently, the termination of a shared-parenting plan must be in the child’s best
interest. See In re A.C., 2019-Ohio-2891, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.).
{¶27} A trial court’s decision to award, modify, or terminate custody “rests
within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. at ¶ 12. We will not reverse the trial
court’s custody decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id. We will affirm a trial court’s
custody decision “that is supported by competent, credible evidence.” Id., citing
Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21, 23 (1990).
{¶28} There are two issues with Father’s argument. First, Father did not cite
the law governing the termination of shared-parenting plans or the applicable
standard of review. As we have explained, “[i]t is not the job of this court to develop or
root through the record and relevant authorities to find support for a party’s position.”
Guthrie v. Guthrie, 2024-Ohio-5581, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.). In fact, “it is improper for an
appellate court to construct legal arguments to support a party’s position.” Johnson v.
Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth., 2022-Ohio-26, ¶ 21 (1st Dist.). An appellant must “set
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
forth an argument demonstrating alleged error(s) in the decision of the court of
common pleas.” Brock v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2025-Ohio-717, ¶ 15
(1st Dist.).
{¶29} Second, Father did not file a transcript. And the lack of a hearing
transcript “prevents a meaningful review of [] factual findings.” Edje, 2024-Ohio-
1663, at ¶ 21 (1st Dist.). Without a transcript, we “simply have no basis to determine
that the trial court abused its discretion or that its decision is against the manifest
weight of the evidence.” Redmond v. Wade, 2017-Ohio-7192, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.).
{¶30} Consider the trial court’s best-interest analysis, which relied on factual
findings and conclusions drawn from the evidence in the record. It determined that
(1) Mother’s and Father’s inability to communicate impacted the children’s lives, (2)
Father’s refusal to cooperate with Stepfather created “friction,” (3) Father could not
be trusted to make “clear-headed, rational decision[s] about the children’s medical
care,” (4) Father’s uncooperative attitude with the custody evaluator frustrated the
trial court’s ability to understand the familial circumstances, and (5) Father’s history
of unnecessary risk-taking with the children suggests an “inability to prioritize the
safety and security of his children.” Without a transcript, we have no basis for
departing from these factual findings and conclusions. And the trial court could
determine, based on these conclusions and findings, that terminating the shared-
parenting plan is in the children’s best interest.
{¶31} In sum, Father cannot prevail on the merits of his arguments without a
hearing transcript or arguments grounded in legal authority. So we overrule the first
assignment of error.
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
C. Father forfeited his Fourth Amendment argument
{¶32} In his second assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court
invaded his privacy and subjected him to an unreasonable search of his medical history
in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
{¶33} But Father did not raise this argument to the trial court or object to the
trial court’s order that the parties submit to the custody evaluation. “[A] party
ordinarily may not present an argument on appeal that it failed to raise below.” State
v. Wintermeyer, 2019-Ohio-5156 ¶ 10. So, Father’s failure to object forfeited all but
plain error on appeal. Burd v. Artis, 2025-Ohio-625, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.).
{¶34} Critically, Father does not present a plain-error argument. An appellate
court “‘need not analyze plain error when the appellant has failed to make a plain-
error argument.’” Id., quoting Marrs v. Mickel, 2023-Ohio-4528, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).
Therefore, we overrule Father’s second assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
{¶35} We overrule the assignments of error and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.