[Cite as In re B.A.G.A., 2026-Ohio-3264.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN RE: B.A.G.A. :
: C.A. No. 30776
:
: Trial Court Case No. H-2015-007252-: 0E
:
: (Appeal from Common Pleas Court: Juvenile Division)
:
: FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
OPINION
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on August 21, 2026, the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
send a copy of the court’s ruling to each party and note that action on the docket.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE
HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30776
T.G., Appellant, Pro Se
A.A. III, Appellee, Pro Se
EPLEY, J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas
Court, Juvenile Division, granting Father the standard order of parenting time (“SOPT”) with
the parties’ minor son, B.A.G.A. Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by
failing to properly consider relevant evidence and the best interest of the child. For the
following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} The parties are the unmarried parents of one son, B.A.G.A., born on July 2,
2015. Prior to the proceedings at issue here, there had not been any court-ordered allocation
of parental rights and responsibilities regarding B.A.G.A. Mother was the custodial parent,
and Father would see B.A.G.A. occasionally. However, on July 21, 2025, Father filed a pro
se motion for allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, requesting “a court order for
custody of [his] son.”
{¶ 3} On September 8, 2025, Mother filed a motion requesting that the trial court
conduct an in-camera interview with B.A.G.A. so that he could express his feelings and
concerns regarding custody. On the same day, the trial court granted Mother’s motion for
an in-camera interview and set the matter for a hearing before the magistrate on October 3,
2025.
{¶ 4} Both parties represented themselves at the hearing. Father testified that he
wanted to have a court order in place so that he could see B.A.G.A. on a regular basis.
2
Mother also testified, expressing concern that B.A.G.A. was not safe with Father due to
alleged physical abuse. In addition, Mother presented two witnesses. They stated that
Father had almost no involvement in B.A.G.A.’s life and that Mother communicated mostly
with Father’s parents regarding B.A.G.A.’s activities and schedule.
{¶ 5} On October 6, 2025, the magistrate granted Father parenting time in
accordance with the SOPT. The magistrate noted that Mother and Father had a “highly
contentious relationship” and acknowledged Mother’s allegations that Father had physically
abused B.A.G.A. on at least one occasion, leading Mother to take B.A.G.A. to the emergency
room. However, the records from that emergency room visit indicated that B.A.G.A. did not
have any visible injuries, that children services was notified but did not open an investigation,
and that Mother did not contact law enforcement to report any alleged abuse. Additionally,
Mother still allowed B.A.G.A. to spend time with Father following the incident. The magistrate
ultimately denied Father’s request for change of custody but found that it was in B.A.G.A.’s
best interest to have parenting time with Father.
{¶ 6} On October 16, 2025, Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. She
reiterated the arguments that she had made during the hearing, including that it was not in
B.A.G.A.’s best interest to have parenting time with Father. She supported her objections
with a transcript of the October 3, 2025 hearing.
{¶ 7} On December 11, 2025, the trial court was made aware of the magistrate’s incamera interview with B.A.G.A. and immediately sent the audio recording of the interview to
be transcribed through eScribers, LLC. On the same day, eScribers contacted Mother to
notify her of the additional transcript and deposit cost. Although Mother was granted
additional time to pay for the transcript, she did not submit payment.
3
{¶ 8} On February 2, 2026, the trial court overruled Mother’s objections and adopted
the magistrate’s decision. In its decision, the trial court first recognized that the transcript of
the hearing in this matter had been properly filed. The trial court noted that “[m]ore than 45
days have elapsed since the eScribers, LLC contacted Mother regarding the in-camera
transcript however Mother has not submitted payment.” Reviewing the magistrate’s decision
on its face only, the trial court found that the magistrate’s decision did not appear to be
unjust, unreasonable, or in plain error. The court awarded Father parenting time in
accordance with the SOPT.
{¶ 9} Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment, raising two assignments of error.
Because they are interrelated, we consider them together. Father did not file a responsive
brief.
II. Appellate Review
{¶ 10} In her assignments of error, Mother asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion by adopting the magistrate’s decision granting Father parenting time in
accordance with the SOPT, because it did not properly consider B.A.G.A.’s best interest or
relevant evidence regarding B.A.G.A.’s “mental health, therapeutic needs, and lack of prior
relationship” with Father.
{¶ 11} Pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii), objections to a magistrate’s decision “shall
be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that
finding.” When the objecting party fails to file a transcript of the proceedings, the trial court
may adopt the magistrate’s factual findings without additional consideration. In re A.B., 2025-Ohio-4771, ¶ 36 (2d Dist.). When a party submits only a partial transcript and “where the
failure to provide the relevant portions of the transcript or suitable alternative is clear on the
face of the submissions, the trial court cannot then address the merits of that factual
4
objection because the objecting party, whether through inadvertence or bad faith, has not
provided all of the materials needed for the review of that objection.” (Emphasis in original.)
Allread v. Allread, 2011-Ohio-1271, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.); accord Huffman v. Huffman, 2009-Ohio5511, ¶ 24 (5th Dist.) (when only a partial transcript is filed and portions of the transcript
necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted, the reviewing court must presume
the validity of the trial court’s proceedings and affirm).
{¶ 12} Notably, we have held that where objections only pertain to questions of law,
a trial court can review them without the benefit of a transcript. Allread at ¶ 25. However, the
allocation of parenting time requires the consideration of multiple factual questions, including
the best interest of the child. Palichat v. Palichat, 2019-Ohio-1379, ¶ 28 (2d Dist.). “Absent
a transcript . . . , a trial court is limited to an examination of the magistrate’s conclusions of
law and recommendations.” Allread at ¶ 25. We have further held that it is “simply
unreasonable” for a trial court to address a party’s objections when the materials submitted
in support of the objections are inadequate. Id. at ¶ 30.
{¶ 13} Mother’s assignments of error pertain to the magistrate’s factual determination
that parenting time with Father was in B.A.G.A.’s best interest. In making this determination,
the magistrate relied, in part, on the in-camera interview with B.A.G.A. In objecting to the
magistrate’s decision, Mother failed to submit the transcript of that interview, so the trial court
was unable to review the complete record of everything the magistrate relied on to reach her
final determination. Therefore, the trial court was precluded from addressing the merits of
Mother’s objections and did not abuse its discretion when it adopted the magistrate’s
decision.
{¶ 14} Both of Mother’s assignments of error are overruled.
5
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
6