Background
Mother and Father are the unmarried parents of B.A.G.A., born in 2015. Mother was the custodial parent, and no court had previously allocated parental rights and responsibilities. In July 2025, Father moved for custody, seeking a court order that would allow him to see the child regularly. Mother requested an in-camera interview of the child and opposed parenting time based in part on alleged physical abuse and Father’s limited prior involvement.
After a hearing and the in-camera interview, the magistrate denied Father’s request to change custody but granted him parenting time under the court’s standard order. Mother objected and submitted the hearing transcript, but she did not pay for or file the transcript of the child’s in-camera interview despite receiving additional time to do so. Because the magistrate had relied partly on that interview, the juvenile court reviewed the magistrate’s decision on its face, overruled Mother’s objections, and adopted the parenting-time award.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Mother’s objections challenged the factual determination that parenting time with Father was in the child’s best interest. Under Juvenile Rule 40, objections to a magistrate’s factual findings must be supported by a transcript of all relevant evidence presented to the magistrate.
Because Mother omitted the in-camera interview transcript, the juvenile court lacked the complete record needed to evaluate her factual objections. The appellate court held that the juvenile court therefore was precluded from reaching the merits of those objections and did not abuse its discretion by adopting the magistrate’s decision. It overruled both assignments of error.
Key Takeaways
- A party challenging a magistrate’s factual findings must provide transcripts of all evidence relevant to those findings.
- A hearing transcript alone was insufficient because the magistrate also relied on the child’s in-camera interview.
- Without the complete record, the juvenile court could not reconsider Mother’s best-interest arguments and properly adopted the magistrate’s parenting-time decision.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores a procedural requirement with substantial consequences in parenting disputes: factual objections to a magistrate’s decision cannot be reviewed on the merits unless the objecting party supplies the complete relevant record. When an in-camera child interview informs the magistrate’s best-interest finding, its transcript may be essential to preserving that challenge.