Lagios v. Goldman , 2014 Ark. App. 640 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 640
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-14-63
Opinion Delivered NOVEMBER 12, 2014
THOMAS L. LAGIOS
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. PR-2012-106-5]
HONORABLE LARRY W. CHANDLER,
JUDGE
KENNETH MITCHELL GOLDMAN
and DEANNE FIELDS GOLDMAN REMANDED TO SETTLE AND
APPELLEES SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Thomas Lagios appeals from the September 17, 2013 adoption decree, in which the
trial court ruled that Lagios was not a fit and proper person to have custody of his infant
daughter, M.L.H., and granted the adoption petition filed by appellees, Deanne and Kenneth
Goldman. Lagios raises four points of appeal in challenging the adoption decree: 1) the trial
court never acquired jurisdiction of the case because the Goldmans never strictly nor
substantially complied with the adoption statutes; 2) the trial court abused its discretion when
it allowed the adoption without Lagios’s consent; 3) the trial court abused its discretion when
it reopened the case sua sponte to allow the Goldmans to introduce the home study
conducted by Deborah Rago; and 4) the facts do not support the trial court’s conclusion that
it was in the child’s best interest to be adopted by the Goldmans. We do not address the
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 640
merits of these arguments because we must remand the case for settlement and
supplementation of the record, and then, rebriefing.
The trial court allowed the parties to file post-trial briefs after the June 28, 2013
hearing. Following submission of those briefs, the trial court reopened the record sua sponte
and held another hearing on August 30, 2013. At the August 30 hearing, the Goldmans were
allowed to introduce the social worker’s home-study report (which had been proffered at the
first hearing but not admitted into evidence because the social worker did not attend the first
hearing). Among the issues raised in this appeal, Lagios challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction
and asserts his own lack of consent to the adoption. No post-trial briefs are included in
Lagios’s addendum. However, the Goldmans included their own post-trial brief and their
reply brief to Lagios’s post-trial brief in their supplemental addendum. But, neither of the
parties have provided us with Lagios’ post-trial brief, nor is it in the record. Without the
missing post-trial brief, it is difficult for us to fully understand this case and to determine if the
issues raised in this appeal were properly preserved for our review.
If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident, we
may direct that the omission be corrected and that a supplemental record be certified and
transmitted. Whitson v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 730; Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(c). We therefore
remand this case to the trial court to settle and supplement the record. Lagios has thirty days
from the date of this opinion to file a supplemental record with this court. Lagios’s substituted
brief is due fifteen days after the supplemental record is filed. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
Moreover, we caution counsel that in noting the absence of Lagios’s post-trial brief, we do
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 640
not purport to provide an exhaustive list of deficiencies. Counsel should carefully review the
rules and ensure that no other deficiencies exist.
Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered.
VAUGHT and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Depper Law Firm, Inc., by: Robert L. Depper, for appellant.
Burbank Dodson & Barker, PLLC, by: Jack W. Barker, for appellees.
3