Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division No. DR-04-302459
M. Heindel, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
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.
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. 
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 * * *."
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.
7} On appeal, in his four assignments of error,
Singh reasserts the same complaints against the ...