In re Adoption of H.P. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • [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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-21-03

Judges: Willamowski

Filed Date: 3/27/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/27/2023