[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] O P I N I O N

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

-2-

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.
Case No. 15-21-03

-3-

{¶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