[Cite as In re K.L.F. , 2021-Ohio-2290.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE D ISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

IN RE: K.L.F., et al. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NOS. CA2020-08-083 CA2020-08-084

O P I N I O N 7/6/2021

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case Nos. JS2019-0352

K.D., pro se Kathleen W. Adams, 8310 Princeton Glendale Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellee

M. POWELL, P.J. {¶ 1} Appellant ("Mother") appeals a decision of the Butler County Co urt of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of the parties' children to appellee ("Father"). {¶ 2} Mother and Father are the parents of a seven-year-old daughter ("Daughter") and a six-year-old son ("Son"). The parties were never married to one another. FatherButler CA2020-08-083 CA2020-08-084

- 2 - resides in Ohio. Mother was living in Tennessee with her famil y when Daughter was born. Father went to Tennessee for his daughter's birth and returned to Ohio shortly thereafter. In May 2014, Mother and Daughter moved to Middletown, Ohio wher e they lived with Father in his parents' home. Son was born in 2015. The paternal gran dmother and paternal aunts helped with childcare when the parties were at work. {¶ 3} The parties' relationship was troubled and ultimately ended. M other believed Father was unfaithful and abused drugs and alcohol. Father has at least one OVI conviction and was charged twice with OVI. Due to Mother's marijuana use during the pregnancy, Son was born testing positive for marijuana. During the partie s' relationship, Mother moved back to Tennessee at least twice; Father either accompanied Mot her or eventually joined her in Tennessee. On both occasions, the parties stayed in Ten nessee for a while then returned to Ohio. In 2018, Father filed a complaint for custod y of the children which he dismissed after the parties "agreed to work it out." On April 16, 2019, Father filed the instant complaint for custody of the children. Three days later, Mothe r filed a notice of intent to relocate to Jacksonville, Florida. Mother did not move to Flor ida. Instead, she permanently relocated to Gallatin, Tennessee. {¶ 4} A custody hearing was held before a magistrate in October 2019. In a decision filed on December 11, 2019, the magistrate granted leg al custody of the children to Father and parenting time to Mother. 1 As this was an initial custody determination and

1. The magistrate's December 11, 2019 decision is improperly l abeled as a "magistrate's decision/order." Juv.R. 40(D)(2)(a)(i) restricts "magistrate's orders" to "[regu lating] the proceedings" and specifically provides that a "magistrate's order" may not be "dispositive of a claim or defense of a party." "A magistrate's order [must] be identified as a magistrate's order in the caption" pu rsuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(2)(a)(ii); "[a] magistrate's decision [must] be identified as a magistrate's decision in the caption" pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(iii). The juvenile rule does not provide for a "magistrate's decision/ord er." The designation is significant because the time to set aside a "magistrate's order" is ten days whereas th e time to object to a "magistrate's decision" is 14 days. Juv. R. 40(D)(2)(b) and (3)(b)(i). The magistrate's grant of Father's custody motion clearly disposed of the parties' claim and should have been designated as a magi strate's decision. As this court has stated multiple times, the designation of a magistrate's determination of an issue as a "magistrate's order" or "magistrate's decision" is not merely a matter of form, but rat her one of substance. In re L.D.M. , 12th Dist.Butler CA2020-08-083 CA2020-08-084

- 3 - Mother was the residential parent by virtue of R.C. 3109.042, t he magistrate applied the children's best interest standard under R.C. 3109.04(F). 2 The magistrate noted that the children are bonded with their parents and extended families; t he children are adjusted to

Mother's home in Tennessee but have never lived with Father at the paternal grandparents' new home in Liberty Township, Ohio; Father is physically health y but has abused alcohol; Mother is physically and mentally healthy; and Father is the pa rent more likely to honor and facilitate parenting time. {¶ 5} Mother filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Followin g a hearing on the objections on June 30, 2020, the juvenile court overruled M other's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. {¶ 6} Mother now appeals, pro se, the juvenile court's decision, rais ing two assignments of error. {¶ 7} In her two assignments of error, Mother argues that the juvenil e court erred in awarding custody of the children to Father. Mother asserts tha t testimony at the custody hearing plainly shows that Father abuses alcohol and has sexual ly abused two women,

witnesses with information on these issues should have been sub poenaed, and the juvenile court erred in not investigating the sexual abuse allegations a gainst Father and his alcohol abuse. Mother also asserts that the award of custody to Father violates the Indian Child

Welfare Act because both children are members of an Alaskan Ind ian tribe. Lastly, Mother references the closure of a children services agency's case con cerning her family. The

Butler No. CA2020-07-078, 2021-Ohio-1853, ¶ 7, fn. 1; State v. C.J. , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-06-082, 2018-Ohio-1258, ¶ 8, fn. 1; State v. J.A.C. , 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2017-04-044 and CA2017-04-045, 2018-Ohio-361, ¶ 10, fn. 2; and In re N.J. , 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2016-10-086 and CA2016-10-090 thru CA2016-10-091, 2017-Ohio-7466, ¶ 10, fn. 2. 2. R.C. 3109.042(A) provides that "[a]n unmarried female who g ives birth to a child is the sole residential parent and legal custodian of the child until a court of compet ent jurisdiction issues an order designating another person as the residential parent and legal custodian."Butler CA2020-08-083 CA2020-08-084

- 4 - case was opened after Son tested positive for marijuana at birt h. {¶ 8} We are precluded from reviewing the issues raised in Mother's a ssignments

of error. {¶ 9} Objections to a magistrate's decision must be "specific and sta te with particularity all grounds for objection." Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(i i). The failure to file specific objections is treated the same as the failure to file any objec tions. In re J.F. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-08-174, 2017-Ohio-1492, ¶ 14. 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 * * * unles s the party has objected to that finding as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)." This court has pre viously ruled that "unless the appellant argues a 'claim of plain error,' the appellant has wa ived the claimed errors not objected to below." State v. J.A.C. , 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2017-04-044 and CA2017- 04-045, 2018-Ohio-361, ¶ 30. {¶ 10} Although Mother filed objections to the magistrate's December 1 1, 2019 decision, she did not specifically object to the magistrate's b est interest findings, did not raise any of the issues she now raises on appeal, and did not c laim plain error on appeal. Rather, her objection was simply a nondescript statement assert ing she had "noticed errors" in the magistrate's decision. It is well recognized that the f ailure to draw a trial court's attention to possible error when the error could have been corr ected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal. In re J.F. at ¶ 15. Mother is therefore precluded from raising these issues on appeal and from challenging the juvenil e court's adoption of the magistrate's findings. Id. ; In re D.R. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-01-018, 209-Ohio-2805, ¶ 30. {¶ 11} We recognize that Mother was acting pro se when she filed her o bjections toButler CA2020-08-083 CA2020-08-084

- 5 - the magistrate's decision and is acting pro se in this appeal. Nonetheless, Mother was still required to comply with the juvenile rules. In re C.B. , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-12- 094, 2014-Ohio-3784, ¶ 13. Litigants who proceed pro se are he ld to the same standard as those who are represented by counsel. Chambers v. Setzer , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-10-078, 2016-Ohio-3219, ¶ 10. As a result, pro se litig ants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and correct legal procedures so that they remain subject to the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. Stiles v. Hayes , 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2015-01-007, 2015-Ohio-4141, ¶ 18. "Pro se litig ants are not to be accorded greater rights and must accept the results of their ow n mistakes and errors, including those related to correct legal procedure." Cox v. Zimmerman , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2011-03-022, 2012-Ohio-226, ¶ 21. {¶ 12} Mother's two assignments of error are overruled. {¶ 13} Judgment affirmed.

S. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.