Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations-Juvenile Division Trial Court Case No. 2012-JG-34
THOMAS P. LIPTOCK, Atty. Reg. No. 0036928, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant.
DARRELL L. HECKMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0002389, Attorney for Defendant-Appellee.
(¶ 1} Appellant, C.R., appeals from a judgment dividing parenting time under a shared parenting plan. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in the division of parenting time under a shared parenting plan.
(¶ 2} We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Appellant failed to submit a transcript of the evidentiary hearing relating to the allocation of parental time, and the validity of the lower court proceeding must be presumed. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
(¶ 3} T.S. was born to Appellant-mother, C.R., and Appellee-father, J.S., on May 10, 2002. By agreement of the parties, C.R. was designated as the legal guardian and residential parent on January 9, 2003. Subsequently, on April 30, 2012, J.S. filed a complaint in the Champaign County Family Court, Juvenile Division, requesting a proposed shared parenting plan, or, in the alternative, sole custody of T.S.
(¶ 4} The record indicates that C.R.'s mother babysat T.S. a great deal of time during C.R.'s parenting time. Her backyard also abutted C.R.'s yard. However, J.S. lived only about a mile away from the two women. J.S. advocated that he should be spending more time with T.S., especially during times that T.S. was being supervised by her grandmother.
(¶ 5} A Guardian ad Litem filed reports on July 2, 2012, and July 3, 2012. In both reports, the Guardian recommended that the parties should attempt to reach an agreement. However, if that did not occur, then the Guardian recommended that C.R. should remain the residential parent, partially due to J.S.'s third shift work schedule.
(¶ 6} The trial court conducted an in camera interview of T.S. on December 3, 2012.
In addition, the parties agreed to a shared parenting agreement. The final evidentiary hearing was then held on February 20, 2013, with allocation of parenting time being the only remaining issue.
(¶ 7} At the hearing, both parties testified and presented other witnesses. J.S. requested equal parenting time. At the time of the hearing, J.S. was unemployed, thereby no ...