[Cite as In re Adoption of K.A.B., 2017-Ohio-6899.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: ADOPTION OF K.A.B. : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
:
: Case No. 2017CA00074
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court
of Common Pleas, Probate Division,
Case No. 227906
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 17, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee For Appellant
ANTHONY T. KAPLANIS T.E.C Pro Se, A440154
116 Cleveland Ave. NW Richland Correctional Institution
Suite 701 1001 Olivesburg Rd
Canton, Ohio 44702 PO Box 8107
Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00074 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant T.E.C. appeals from the April 18, 2017 Judgment Entry of the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, finding that his consent to the
adoption of K.A.B. was not required.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant T.E.C. is the biological father of K.A.B (DOB 8/3/2000). On
January 13, 2017, C.S.B., the child’s stepfather, filed a petition for adoption pursuant to
R.C. 3107.05. In his petition, he alleged that appellant’s consent to the adoption was not
required because appellant had failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de
minimis contact with the child and to provide for the maintenance and support of the child
for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition
or placement of the child in the petitioner’s home. The petition further indicated that
appellant was incarcerated for life for rape. K.A.B.’s mother had consented to the
adoption.
{¶3} On January 30, 2017, appellant filed an objection to the adoption. A hearing
on the adoption was scheduled for April 18, 2017. Appellant, who was incarcerated,
participated telephonically.
{¶4} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on April 18, 2017, the trial court found
that appellant’s consent to the adoption was not required because appellant had failed
without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with the child and to
provide for the maintenance and support of the child for a period of at least one year
immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition or placement of the child in the
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00074 3
petitioner’s home. The trial court did not make any factual findings. A Final Decree of
Adoption was filed on the same day.
{¶5} Appellant now raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶6} I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED A
JUDGMENT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT WAS NOT REQUIRED.
{¶7} II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE
BIOLOGICAL FATHER TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE PRETRIAL HEARING.
I
{¶8} Appellant, in his first assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred in
finding that his consent to the adoption was not required.
{¶9} We note that appellant has failed to file a transcript in accordance with
App.R. 9(B). Pursuant to App.R. 9(B)(1), “it is the obligation of the appellant to ensure
that the proceedings the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record,
however those proceedings were recorded, are transcribed in a form that meets the
specifications of App.R. 9(B)(6).” “For parties who cannot afford to have a transcript
prepared, existing case law authorizes the use of a statement of proceedings under
App.R. 9(C).” 2011 Staff Note, Appellate Rule 9.
{¶10} In the case sub judice, appellant did not file a transcript or an App.R. 9(C)
statement of proceedings of the hearing held on the petition for adoption. When portions
of the transcript or statement of proceedings necessary for resolution of the assigned
error are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass on and thus,
as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice to presume the validity of the lower
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00074 4
court's proceedings and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400
N.E.2d 384 (1980).
{¶11} Appellant’s first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
II
{¶12} Appellant, in his second assignment of error, argues that the trial court
abused its discretion when it denied him the right to participate at the pretrial hearing on
March 27, 2017.
{¶13} Appellant, on March 6, 2017, filed a motion asking the trial court to issue an
order to the Warden at Richland Correctional Institution to provide a telephone or video
service so that appellant could participate at the March 27, 2017 pretrial in this case. The
trial court, as memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on March 23, 2017, denied such
motion, stating that appellant "shall make his own arrangements to participate at the
pretrial.” We find, contrary to appellant’s argument, that the trial court did not deny him
the right to participate at the pretrial hearing. There is no transcript of the March 27, 2017
pretrial in the record to indicate whether or not appellant did so.
{¶14} Appellant’s second assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00074 5
{¶15} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas,
Probate Division, is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
John Wise, J. concur.
In re Adoption of K.A.B.
Combined Opinion