[Cite as Reed v. Davis , 2021-Ohio-3757.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

ASHIA G. REED Appellant

v. ANTHONY A. DAVIS Appellee : : : : : : : : : : Appellate Case No. 29086

Trial Court Case No. 2020-DR-339 (Appeal from Common Pleas Court - Domestic Relations Division)

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 22nd day of October, 2021.

. . . . . . . . . . . ASHIA G. REED, 5102 Embassy Pl ace, Dayton, Ohio 45414 A ppellant, Pro Se ANTHONY A. DAVIS, 2588 Ring Place, Cincinnati, OH 45204 Appellee, Pro Se

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J.-2-

{¶ 1} Ashia G. Reed appeals pro se from the trial court’s final judgm ent and decree of divorce that terminated her marriage to appellee Anthony A. Davis. {¶ 2} Although Reed’s brief lacks a pro per assignment of error, she a rgues that the trial court erred in designating which parent may claim the par ties’ three children as dependents for income-tax purposes. {¶ 3} The record reflects that the parties appeared in court on Febru ary 8, 2021, and presented the trial court with a shared-parenting plan. The y agreed that they wanted to engage in shared parenting under the terms of the plan. The only issue in dispute concerned child support. (February 8, 2021 Tr. at 3-6.) The tri al court proceeded to take testimony on that issue. On March 10, 2021, the trial court fil ed a decision obligating Davis to pay child support. The decision also awarded Reed a permanen t tax exemption for one of their children while awarding Davis a permanent exemption fo r the other two children. Thereafter on April 2, 2021, the trial court filed a final judg ment and divorce decree along with the parties’ shared-parenting plan, which the decree adopt ed. The terms of the shared-parenting plan, which Reed had signed, addressed the iss ue of tax exemptions. 1 As filed, the plan divided the exemptions for the parties’ chil dren as set forth above. We note that the tax-exemption portion of the plan contains white- out redactions with handwritten language. {¶ 4} On appeal, Reed asserts that she and Davis had agreed to altern ate taking tax exemptions for all three children. According to Reed, the p lan was for her to claim the

1 Although the plan is not signed by Davis, he acknowledged duri ng the February 8, 2021 hearing that he wanted shared parenting under the terms of the plan.-3- three exemptions in even-numbered years with Davis claiming the m in odd-numbered years. Therefore, Reed contends the trial court erred in perman ently awarding her one exemption and Davis two exemptions. In support, she has attache d to her amended appellate brief what she claims is an un-redacted shared-parent ing plan reflecting what the parties submitted to the trial court. On June 28, 2021, Ree d moved to make this “unrevised” shared-parenting plan part of the record. We overru led her motion on August 17, 2021. In so doing, however, we stayed the appeal and remand ed the case to the trial court to resolve the record. To that end, we ordered Reed to fi le a motion to supplement the record in the trial court with a copy of the shared-parenti ng plan she submitted to us. {¶ 5} In a September 16, 2021 decision and entry, we noted that Reed had not filed a motion to supplement the record. We lifted the stay and returned the case to our active docket, noting that “[t]he record remains as previously transferred by the clerk.” As a result, the un-redacted shared-parenting plan upon which Reed relies is not part of the record and we cannot consider it. We are left with only the sha red-parenting plan filed by the trial court and signed by Reed that divides the tax exempti ons as ordered in the divorce decree. Although that shared-parenting plan contains wh ite-out redactions and handwriting, it is impossible for us to determine who made chan ges. For all we know, the parties themselves may have made modifications prior to submitt ing their sharedparenting plan to the trial court. Under such circumstances, we must presume regularity in the proceedings below. {¶ 6} In short, the record contains a shared-parenting plan that divi des the tax exemptions consistent with the trial court’s order in the divor ce decree. We see no evidence in the hearing transcripts or elsewhere to support Ree d’s claim about the trial-4- court’s tax-exemption decision being inconsistent with the part ies’ true agreement. Accordingly, Reed’s assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 7} The judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Domes tic Relations Division, is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

DONOVAN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.

Copies sent to:

Ashia G. Reed Anthony A. Davis Hon. Timothy D. Wood