In re Adoption of H.P. , 2023 Ohio 981 ( 2023 )

[Cite as In re Adoption of H.P., 2023-Ohio-981.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
VAN WERT COUNTY
IN RE: THE ADOPTION OF: CASE NO. 15-21-03
H.P.,
[KAIDIN W. - APPELLANT] OPINION
Appeal from Van Wert County Common Pleas Court
Probate Division
Trial Court No. 20204017
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 27, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Elizabeth M. Mosser for Appellant
Jerry M. Johnson for Appellee, Jeffrey and Nicole P.
John C. Huffman for Appellee, Josephine D.
Case No. 15-21-03
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} This appeal is here on remand from the Supreme Court of Ohio. In re
Adoption of H.P., ___ Ohio St.3d ____, 2022-Ohio-4369. Appellant Kaidin W.
(“Kaidin”) brought this appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Van Wert County, Probate Division, denying his motion to be joined as a party and
finding that his consent to the adoption of H.P. was unnecessary. On appeal, Kaidin
claims that the trial court erred in 1) holding that the putative father statute applied
in his case once paternity was established, 2) denying his motion to be joined as a
party, 3) applying R.C. 3107.06(B)(3) in an unconstitutional manner. For the
reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} As noted above, this case is here on remand for the third and fourth
assignments of error only. Thus, we will not address the first and second
assignments of error. On appeal, Kaidin raised the following assignments of error
in the third and fourth assignments of error.
Third Assignment of Error
R.C. 3107.06(B)(3) is unconstitutional as applied in this matter
when parentage is legally established at the time of the consent
hearing.
Fourth Assignment of Error
R.C. 3107.07(B)(1) is unconstitutional as applied in this matter
when [Kaidin] registered with the putative father registry prior
to the consent hearing, was present at the consent hearing, and
petitioners had notice of such registration and objection to the
petition within two weeks of their petition being filed.
-2-
Case No. 15-21-03
{¶3} In both the third and fourth assignments of error, Kaidin challenges the
constitutionality of R.C. 3107.06 and R.C. 3107.07 as applied to his case. A review
of the record in this case shows that this issue was not raised in the trial court and
was thus not ruled upon by the trial court. “Failure to raise at the trial court level
the issue of the constitutionality of a statute or its application, which issue is
apparent at the time of trial, constitutes a waiver of such issue and a deviation from
this state’s orderly procedure, and therefore need not be heard for the first time on
appeal.” Remley v. Cincinnati Metro. House Auth., 99 Ohio App.3d 573, 575, 651
N.E.2d 450 (1st Dist. 1994) quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d
277 (1986), syllabus. Since the matter was not addressed to the trial court, it will
not be addressed for the first time on appeal. The third and fourth assignments of
error are overruled.
{¶4} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Van Wert
County, Probate Division, is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.
/hls
-3-