Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kaur v. Singh

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

August 29, 2019

PARAMJOT KAUR, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAJBINDER SINGH, Defendant-Appellant.

          Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division No. DR-04-302459

         JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

          Edward M. Heindel, for appellant.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          EILEEN A GALLAGHER, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Rajbinder Singh appeals from the trial court's order adopting the magistrate's decision which granted plaintiff-appellee Paramjot Kaur's motion to modify the shared parenting plan. We affirm.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         {¶ 2} The marriage of Singh and Kaur was dissolved in 2005. At the time of dissolution, the court designated Kaur as the residential parent and legal custodian for their two minor children. Subsequently, Kaur moved out of state and, following this move, Singh was designated the residential parent. Kaur filed a motion to modify the shared parenting plan for the children based on a change in circumstance.

         {¶ 3} A magistrate conducted a hearing on Kaur's motion. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from Singh and Kaur, as well as the children's guardian ad litem ("GAL"). The court accepted the GAL's report and its attached exhibits into evidence as well as exhibits offered by Kaur. Singh appeared at the hearing pro se and failed to object to any of the issues that form the basis for his assignments of error on appeal. [1]

         {¶ 4} After the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision that contained an analysis of the best interests of the children. The decision concluded that Kaur be designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the children and that Singh, as the nonresidential parent, "have parenting time according to the Court's Parenting Time Guidelines for Non-Residential Parent but only subject to the recommendation of the minor children's counsel and voluntarily on the part of the minor children * * *."

         {¶5} Singh, through counsel, raised four objections with the trial court challenging the magistrate's decision. None of his objections challenged the magistrate's analysis of the best interests of the children or its ultimate conclusion that Kaur's motion should be granted. Instead, Singh only asserted four evidentiary objections, arguing to the trial court that the magistrate erred by permitting Kaur to present certain evidence despite the fact that he failed to object at the hearing. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision in its entirety.

         {¶ 6} Singh now appeals from the trial court's order adopting that decision.

         Assignments of Error

         {¶ 7} On appeal, in his four assignments of error, Singh reasserts the same complaints against the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.