the magistrate may not have had the authority to enter the order under Ind.Code § 33-24-5-8, Father does not argue on appeal that the order was defective because it contained the signature of the magistrate only and the record does not indicate that either party argued below that die order was defective for failing to contain the judge's signature or another indication the order was approved by the trial court. Accordingly, the parties have waived any challenge to the validity of the appealed order by failing to make any objection or call the court’s attention to the issue. See Tapia v. State, 753 N.E.2d 581, 588 (Ind.2001) (noting that Tapia claimed that a magistrate who issued several orders in his c ; see also Sullivan v. City of Evansville, 728 N.E.2d 182, 187-191 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Father cites to “Ind.Code § 35-16-15-7.”
holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of hearing by failing to object holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing holding that appellant by failing to object to commissioners authority before or at the administrative hearing waived any challenge holding appellant waived his challenge to statute as vague as applied because he did not specifically object at trial