[Cite as In re A.S., 2014-Ohio-4936.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101339

IN RE: A.S. 

A Minor Child

[Appeal by K.P., Father] 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case No. SU 13704089 

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., Rocco, P.J., and Blackmon, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 6, 2014 
FOR APPELLANT

K.P., pro se 

3321 E. 79th Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44127 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Joseph C. Young 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

P.O. Box 93894 

Cleveland, Ohio 44101-5984 

T.S., pro se 

1552 E. 195th Street 

Euclid, Ohio 44117 
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Appellant K.P. appeals a child support order entered in the Cuyahoga County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. K.P. argues that the trial court failed to examine the 

necessary evidence or make the necessary findings under R.C. 3119.05(B), 3119.022 and 

3119.76(A). Finding no merit to the instant appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision. 

{¶2} Mother T.S. gave birth to A.S. on April 27, 2002. On March 19, 2013, 

Cuyahoga County Job and Family Services filed a complaint seeking an order for K.P. to pay 

child support for A.S. The record reflects that the parent-child relationship between A.S. and 

K.P. was established in a prior case. 

{¶3} A hearing on this matter was held before a magistrate who found that A.S. resides 

with T.S., that K.P. had five other biological or adopted children who did not reside in his home 

for whom he had paid $5,407 in court- ordered child support within the last 12 months and that 

K.P. had three biological children who lived with him. The magistrate found K.P.’s annual 

income to be $31,000, prepared a guideline worksheet to calculate K.P.’s child support pursuant 

to R.C. Chapter 3119 and found his support for A.S. to be $225.37 per month along with $56.18 

per month in cash medical support when private health insurance is not being provided. 

{¶4} On April 22, 2014, K.P. filed objections to the magistrate’s decision on the basis 

“1. I do have my three minor kids residing in my home” and “2. I paid $8,749.56 in child 

support in the past year with no arrears.” K.P. attached an earnings statement from his employer 

reflecting a year-to-date child support deduction of $8,749.56 as of December 2013. However, 

it is unclear from the record whether K.P. submitted this documentation at the hearing on the 

matter nor is there any evidence that K.P. supplied to the trial court a transcript of the 
proceedings before the magistrate. The trial court overruled K.P.’s objections and adopted the 

magistrate’s decision on April 25, 2014. K.P. appeals asserting the following sole assignment of 

error: 

The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant because it did not examine the 

necessary evidence or make the necessary findings under Ohio Revised Code 

3119.05(B), 3119.022(9), [sic] and 3119.76(A). 

{¶5} K.P. argues that the trial court erred in crediting him with $5,407 in annual 

court-ordered child support instead of $8,749.56. However, as noted above, it does not appear 

from the record that K.P. provided the trial court with a transcript of the proceedings before the 

magistrate. Where a party objects to a magistrate’s factual finding, the trial court must conduct 

an “independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has properly 

determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.” In re H.R.K., 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 97780, 2012-Ohio-4054, ¶ 10; Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d). The independent review 

requires the trial court to “conduct a de novo review of the facts and an independent analysis of 

the issues to reach its own conclusions about the issues in the case.” Radford v. Radford, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 96267 and 96445, 2011-Ohio-6263, ¶ 13. 

{¶6} To aid in the court’s independent review, if the objecting party has challenged a 

magistrate’s finding of fact, the party must supply the trial court with “a transcript of all the 

evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a 

transcript is not available.” In re H.R.K. at ¶ 11; Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii). Absent a transcript of 

proceedings, or appropriate affidavit as provided in the rule, a trial court is limited to an 

examination of the magistrate’s conclusions of law and recommendations, accepting the 

magistrate’s findings of fact, unless the trial court elects to hold further hearings. In re C.L., 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93720, 2010-Ohio-682, ¶ 8, citing Wade v. Wade, 113 Ohio App.3d 414, 
418, 680 N.E.2d 1305 (11th Dist.1996); In re D.S.R., 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2011-L-119 and 

2011-L-130, 2012-Ohio-5823, ¶ 17. 

{¶7} Even if K.P. had properly complied with Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii), he has failed to 

provide this court with a transcript of the hearing. As the court stated in Knapp v. Edwards 

Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980): 

The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant. This 

is necessary because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference 

to matters in the record. * * * when 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, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice 

but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm. 

Id. at 199. 

{¶8} In this instance, K.P. has not provided us with a transcript of the proceedings 

necessary to evaluate his argument that the magistrate made incorrect factual findings regarding 

his court-ordered child support obligations stemming from his other children. Finding no error in 

a calculation derived from the worksheet, we are constrained to presume regularity and 

summarily reject his assignment of error. In re D.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101012, 

2014-Ohio-3596, ¶ 9; In re Z.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96304, 2011-Ohio-2936, ¶ 7. 

{¶9} K.P.’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶10} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas 

court to carry this judgment into execution. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and 

PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR