In re M.E.F. ( 2019 )

[Cite as In re M.E.F., 2019-Ohio-1291.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLINTON COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE :
ADOPTION OF:
: CASE NO. CA2018-10-017
M.E.F.
: OPINION
4/8/2019
:
APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PROBATE DIVISION
Case No. 2017-5037
Rose & Dobyns Co., LPA, Scott B. Evans, 97 N. South Street, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for
appellee
Jennifer A. Coy, 5986 Countrymeadow Lane, Cincinnati, Ohio 45233, for appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant appeals a decision by the Clinton County Probate Court finding his
consent to the adoption of his child was not necessary. For the reasons detailed below, we
affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant is the biological father of M.E.F.1 Appellee, the child's stepfather,
filed a petition to adopt M.E.F. on December 20, 2017. The petition alleged that appellant's
1. The trial court found that appellant was M.E.F.'s biological father and, for reasons addressed later in the
opinion, we adopt that finding.
Clinton CA2018-10-017
consent was not required because appellant failed without justifiable cause to communicate
and support the child in the one year preceding the petition.
{¶ 3} Following a hearing, the trial court concluded that appellant's consent was not
required. Appellant now appeals the trial court's decision, raising three assignment of error
for review.
{¶ 4} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 5} THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT
APPELLANT WILLFULLY ABANDONED M.F. [sic] AS REQUIRED BY R.C. 3107.07.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 7} THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 9} THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION VIOLATES APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS.
{¶ 10} We will address appellant's assignments of error together.2 In his first and
second assignments of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in determining that his
consent to the adoption was not required. We disagree.
{¶ 11} The right of natural parents to the care and custody of their child is one of the
most precious and fundamental in law. In re Adoption of: A.N.L., 12th Dist. Preble Nos.
CA2004-11-131 and CA2005-04-046, 2005-Ohio-4239, ¶ 50. Because adoption terminates
these rights, Ohio law requires parental consent to an adoption unless a specific statutory
exemption exists. In re Adoption of R.M.T., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2016-12-107,
CA2017-05-056, and CA2017-05-057, 2017-Ohio-8639, ¶ 13.
2. During oral argument, appellant withdrew his third assignment of error.
-2-
Clinton CA2018-10-017
{¶ 12} An exemption to parental consent exists if a court finds, after notice and a
hearing, that in the year preceding the adoption petition, the parent failed without justifiable
cause to have more than de minimis contact with the child or the parent failed to provide
support and maintenance for the child. R.C. 3107.07(A). Additionally, consent is not required
of a putative father if either of the following applies:
(1) The putative father fails to register as the minor's putative
father with the putative father registry established under section
3107.062 of the Revised Code not later than fifteen days after
the minor's birth;
(2) The court finds, after proper service of notice and hearing,
that any of the following are the case:
(a) The putative father is not the father of the minor;
(b) The putative father has willfully abandoned or failed to care
for and support the minor;
(c) The putative father has willfully abandoned the mother of the
minor during her pregnancy and up to the time of her surrender
of the minor, or the minor's placement in the home of the
petitioner, whichever occurs first.
R.C. 3107.07(B).
{¶ 13} In his brief, appellant argues that he did not "willfully abandon" M.E.F. under the
putative father exception contained in R.C. 3107.07(B) and there was justifiable cause for his
failure to see the child and provide support under both the parental exception in R.C.
3107.07(A) and the putative father exception in R.C. 3107.07(B). Despite appellant's
arguments to the contrary, he failed to file a transcript of the hearing before the trial court.
Therefore, although both parties have presented and argued facts from the hearing in their
briefs, our review is limited to the record on appeal, the exhibits submitted, and the decision
of the trial court. In re Adoption of R.M.T., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2016-12-107, CA2017-
05-056, and CA2017-05-057, 2017-Ohio-8639, ¶ 15.
{¶ 14} "Where portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are
-3-
Clinton CA2018-10-017
omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus has no
choice but to presume the regularity or validity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm."
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St. 2d 197, 199 (1980). Since appellant failed to file
a transcript of the proceedings, this court cannot determine the validity of the assertions
made in his brief and we must presume the regularity of the proceedings. Therefore,
appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled. Appellant's third assignment
of error is also overruled, consistent with his dismissal of that issue during oral argument.
{¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-4-