COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60892 LORI ANN MURPHY : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION HARRY LEE MURPHY : : Defendant-appellee : PER CURIAM : [APPEAL BY: ERNEST AND SHARON : WARD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS] : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : OCTOBER 10, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Domestic Relations Division : Case No. D-187927 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendants-appellants Ernest & Sharon Ward: KIM HASTINGS, ESQ. Guardian Ad Litem ROBERT TROLL LYNCH, ESQ. 800 National City Bank LYNCH & LYNCH East Sixth Building 711 Statler Office Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Also listed: JOHN J. WARGO, ESQ. JOHN A. FRENDEN, ESQ. 30 Park Drive 930 Leader Building P.O. box 332 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Berea, Ohio 44017 - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ernest and Sharon Ward appeal from the judgment of the trial court ordering them to contribute to the payment of Guardian Ad Litem fees incurred in connection with a motion to modify custody. I. Plaintiff Lori Murphy and defendant Harry Murphy were divorced on November 4, 1988 and custody of the parties' three children was awarded to plaintiff. Thereafter, on August 3, 1989, defendant filed a motion to modify custody in which he asserted that the children were being abused in plaintiff's home. This motion was supported by an affidavit executed by plaintiff's father, Ernest Ward. On August 8, 1989, the trial court joined the children as parties and appointed attorney Kim Hastings as their Guardian Ad Litem. A hearing was held on the matter in September 1989. While no transcript of this hearing has been provided on appeal, the report of the referee indicates that the Wards appeared at the hearing and made "a claim to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children, and their joinder became mandatory pursuant to law." Thereafter, attorney Robert Troll Lynch entered an appearance as counsel for the Wards, and the Wards moved to have plaintiff and the children submit to psychological evaluation, moved for allowance of visitation, moved to have plaintiff submit "to a drug and alcohol evaluation," moved to - 3 - join plaintiff's present husband and stepson in the action, moved to have these proposed new party defendants submit to psychological evaluations, moved for an in camera inspection of the stepson's juvenile records, and subpoenaed the Guardian Ad Litem for deposition. After most of the substantive motions which were filed in the action had been ruled upon, the Guardian Ad Litem filed a Motion and Application for Guardian Ad Litem Fees, and requested that this motion be set for hearing at the final hearing on all motions. While no transcript of this final hearing has been provided, the report of the referee indicates that at this hearing it was established that: "50% of the time which was spent on behalf of the minor children was related solely to issues which would not have existed in the case but for the actions and involvement of the maternal grandparents." Accordingly, the referee recommended, based upon parties' relative financial positions, that the Wards pay $3,101.58 to the Guardian Ad Litem. Thereafter, the trial court adopted the referee's recommendations, and the Wards now appeal. II. "IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND UNSUPPORTED BY THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE TO CHARGE TO THIRD PARTY GRANDPARENTS OVER 50% OF THE GUARDIAN FEES." In their sole assignment of error, the Wards assert that the trial court was without authority to assess 50% of the Guardian Ad Litem fees against them because they claim they were brought - 4 - into the action on the court's own motion, and had only limited involvement. Pursuant to Civ. R. 75(B)(2), a trial court is vested with discretion as to whether or not to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem. State v. Stone (1983), 9 Ohio App. 3d 6, 12. Civ. R. 75(B)(2) additionally grants a trial court broad authority to tax the costs of the Guardian Ad Litem's fee to the parties. See Staff Notes to Civ. R. 75(B)(2); accord Pruden-Wilgus v. Wilgus (1988), 46 Ohio App. 3d 13, 16. In evaluating an order for compensation to a Guardian Ad Litem, a reviewing court shall consider whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Davis v. Davis (1988), 55 Ohio App. 3d 196, 200. In this case, no transcript of any of the hearings has been provided. The record is therefore insufficient to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, as a presumption of validity therefore attends the trial court's action. Volodkevich v.Volodkevich (1989), 48 Ohio App. 3d 313, 314. Accordingly, the Ward's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - This cause is affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, PRESIDING JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the Court and time period for review will begin to run. .