[Cite as Casto v. Lehr , 2020-Ohio-3777.]

COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DEBRA A. CASTO : JUDGES: : : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Petitione r -Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J. -vs- : : Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 : MICHAEL P. LEHR : : : Respondent-Appellan t : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2019 VI 11 0457

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 17, 2020

APPEARANCES:

Fo r Petitione r -Appellee: Fo r Respondent-Appellant:

MICHAEL C. JOHNSON RONALD L. COLLINS 117 South Broadwa y 9302 Lakewood Dr. NE P.O. Box 1007 Mineral Cit y , OH 44656 New Philadelphia, OH 44663Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 2

Delaney, J. {¶1} Respondent-Appellant Michael P. Lehr appeals the January 1 7, 2020 Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order granted by the Tuscara was County Court of

Common Pleas.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} On November 13, 2019 at 1:43 a.m., officers with the Dover Police Department responded to a 911 call made by Respondent-Appellant Michael P. Lehr. Lehr stated that his girlfriend, Petitioner-Appellee Debra A. C asto, had stabbed him with a needle and had attempted to stab him with a butcher’s knife. {¶3} When the officers arrived at Lehr’s home, they found Lehr laying on the ground in front of the house, hysterically crying. It was 14 de grees outside and Lehr was only wearing a pair of shorts. The officers put Lehr in the pol ice car and called an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. Lehr told the offic ers that Castro had previously threatened to kill him with his insulin. The officer s entered the home to find the perpetrator and discovered Casto asleep in an attic bedroom. Th e officers woke her up and explained why they were in the home. Casto denied harming o r attempting to harm

Lehr. {¶4} After finding Casto, the officers investigated the rest of the home. Casto’s

bedroom was in the attic and Lehr’s bedroom was on the second f loor. In Lehr’s bedroom, the officers discovered a large butcher’s knife plunged sideway s about three or four inches into the mattress pad of the bed. The officers observed the room did not appear

to be disturbed or showed evidence that a confrontation had rec ently taken place. The officers did not see a syringe in the bedroom.Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 3

{¶5} The officers spoke with other members of the family who we re sleeping in adjoining bedrooms at the time of the alleged incident and they did not hear any disturbances. The officers interviewed Lehr at the hospital whe re he said he followed his usual nightly routine and was afraid Casto would give him an in sulin overdose. {¶6} Based on the investigation, the Dover Police Department ch arged Lehr with falsification and disorderly conduct. {¶7} On November 14, 2019, Casto filed a petition for a domesti c violence civil protection order (“DVCPO”) with the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas. In her petition, Casto stated that she ended her romantic relationship with Lehr in August 2019, but they continued to reside together in the home they jointly- owned. She alleged during the relationship Lehr was verbally abusive. During arguments he would poke her in the chest. She found photographs in the home where Lehr had cut him self out of the photograph. After the alleged stabbing incident, Casto was afra id for her safety. The ex parte DVCPO was granted on November 14, 2019. {¶8} After multiple continuances, the full hearing was held bef ore the magistrate on January 14, 2020. The Dover Police Department officers prese nt at the November 13, 2019 incident testified at the hearing. Casto testified she end ed the relationship in August 2019 but Lehr wanted to reconcile. He told people that he and L ehr were married, which was not true. In November 2019, Casto said that Lehr came to he r place of employment to deliver a package to her. He confronted her about their rela tionship, raising his voice which caused her to be afraid for her safety. Casto filed the D VCPO because she was afraid of him after the November 13, 2019 incident. She stated that if he could stab a bedTuscarawas County, Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 4

and accuse her of stabbing him, she did not know what else he c ould do. She was afraid of his negative behaviors escalating. {¶9} Lehr testified at the hearing that on November 13, 2019, h e was sleeping in bed with his dog and he woke up to the feeling of a sharp pain in his right side. He rolled over and saw Casto standing over him with a knife in her hand. Lehr rolled off the side of the bed and he heard Casto walk upstairs to the attic. He calle d 911 and ran out of the house because he thought Casto would come back with a gun. Lehr denied ever being

violent towards Casto. {¶10} On January 17, 2020, the order of protection was filed, g ranting a threeyear DVCPO against Lehr. The order of protection was signed by the magistrate. The trial court also signed the order of protection, stating it had revie wed the order and found no error of law or defect evident on the face of the order, thereb y adopting the order. {¶11} Lehr did not file objections to the trial court’s adoptio n of the magistrate’s decision granting the DVCPO pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G). Lehr fi led a notice of appeal on February 4, 2020.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR {¶12} Lehr raises three Assignments of Error: {¶13} “I. NEITHER THE PETITION, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 3113.31( C)(1) NOR THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, ALLEGED NOR PROVED THAT THE RESPONDE NT

ENGAGED IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THUS LACKED GROUNDS FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF A CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER. {¶14} “II. THE RULING OF THE COURT ISSUING A CIVIL PROTECTION

ORDER IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 5

{¶15} “III. THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING HEARSAY AND OPINION

EVIDENCE.”

ANALYSIS {¶16} Before we address Lehr’s three Assignments of Error, we m ust consider whether this matter is properly before the Court. {¶17} The trial court granted Casto a DVCPO pursuant to R.C. 31 13.31. The rules governing civil protection orders are set forth in Civ.R. 65.1. According to Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3), civil protection order petitions may be referred to a magistrate for determination, but “[a] magistrate's denial or granting of a pr otection order after a full hearing * * * does not constitute a magistrate's order or a mag istrate's decision under Civ.R. 53(D)(2) or (3) and is not subject to the requirements o f those rules.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(b). A magistrate's denial or granting of a protectio n order after a full hearing is not effective unless adopted by the court. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)

. {¶18} “A party may file written objections to a court's adoptio n, modification, or rejection of a magistrate's denial or granting of a protection order after a full hearing, or any terms of such an order, within fourteen days of the court's filing of the order.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i). Objections bas ed on evidence of record must b e supported by a transcript or, if a transcript is not available, an affidavit o f that evidence. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iii). An order entered by the court under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c) or (e) is a final, appealable order. Civ.R. 65.1(G). Pursuant to a July 1, 2016 am endment to Civ.R. 65.1, however, “a party must timely file objections to such an order under division (F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal, and the timely filing of s uch objections shall stay the running of the time for appeal until the filing of the court's ruling on the objections.”Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 6

(Emphasis added.) Civ.R. 65.1(G). The amendment was specificall y made “to require that a party must file objections prior to filing an appeal from a t rial court's otherwise appealable adoption, modification, or rejection of a magistrate 's ruling.” C.F. v. T.H.R ., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-536, 2019-Ohio-488, 2019 WL 549166 , ¶ 5 citing Civ.R. 65.1, Division (G) notes. As the 2016 Staff Note explains: “[t] his amendment is grounded on two key principles. First, it promotes the fair administrati on of justice, including affording the trial court an opportunity to review the transcri pt and address any insufficiency of evidence or abuse of discretion that would ren der the order or a term of the order unjust. Second, it creates a more robust record upon which the appeal may proceed.” Post v. Leopardi , 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2019-T- 0061, 2020-Oh io-2890, 2020 WL 2313436, ¶ 13. {¶19} This Court has previously relied on the authority of the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth appellate districts whom have address ed Civ.R. 65.1(G) and the failure to file timely objections prior to filing an appeal

. See M.K. v. A.C.K ., 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2019 CA 00023, 2020-Ohio-400, 2020 WL 603607. Our colleagues have held the requirements of Civ.R. 65.1(G) are mandatory and a par ty's failure to file timely objections to a trial court's adoption of a magistrate's decisi on granting or denying a civil protection order prior to filing an appeal is a violation of Ci v.R. 65.1(G) and as such, the appeal of the civil protection order must be dismissed. See K.R. v. T.B ., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP–302, 2017–Ohio–8647, ¶ 4–6 (dismissing appeal pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G));

C.F. v. T.H.R ., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-536, 2019-Ohio-488 (dismissing appeal pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G)); J.S. v. D.E ., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0032, 2017– Ohio–7507, ¶ 17–22 (dismissing appeal when written objections n ot timely filed); K.U. v.Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 7

M.S ., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 16 MA 0165, 2017–Ohio–8029, ¶ 17–18 ( stating that without objections filed appellate court has no jurisdiction); A.S. v. D.S. , 9th Dist. Medina No. 16CA0080–M, 2017–Ohio–7782, ¶ 5–6 (dismissing appeal without ad dressing merits pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G)); Hetrick v. Lockwood , 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-17-014, 2018- Ohio-118, 2018 WL 388965, ¶ 8 (dismissing appeal when appellant failed to file timely objections to trial court's adoption of magistrate's granting o f CSPO after full hearing);

Danison v. Blinco , 3rd Dist. Crawford, No. 3-18-19, 2019-Ohio-2767, ¶ 8 (failure to file objections to trial court's adoption of magistrate's decision f ailed to preserve appellant's arguments for appeal); See also Frith v. Frith , 9th Dist. Summit No. 28361, 2017–Ohio– 7848, ¶ 4–6 (dismissing due to trial court not ruling on appell ant's timely filed objections prior to the appeal as required under Civ.R. 65.1(G)); Runkle v. Stewart , 2nd Dist. Miami No. 2018-CA-27, 2019-Ohio-2356, ¶ 11 (affirmed judgment of tria l court after appellant failed to file timely objections to trial court's adoption of m agistrate's decision denying DVCPO after full hearing). But see Saqr v. Naji , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C–160850, 2017– Ohio–8142, ¶ 14–19 (allowing appeal despite no objections filed because no notice that objections must be filed was provided). {¶20} Here, the record shows that Lehr failed to file timely ob jections to the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision granting the DVCP O. {¶21} We hold that without timely filed objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G), Lehr may not challenge the trial court's decision on appeal. Accordingly , we decline to address the merits and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G).Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2020 AP 02 0002 8

CONCLUSION {¶22} The appeal of the January 17, 2020 DVCPO issued by the Tu scarawas County Court of Common Pleas is dismissed. By: Delaney, J., Hoffman, P.J. and Wise, John, J., concur.