[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. Huffm an for Appellee, Josephine D.Case No. 15

- 21

- 03

- 2

-

W ILLAMOWSKI , J.
{¶1} This appeal is here on rem and 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 cour t 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 ju dgment 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 th ird 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 un constitutional 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 w eeks 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 rais ed 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 (1 st 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 over ruled.
{¶4} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Co urt of Common Pleas of Van Wert

County, Probate Division, is affirmed

. Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/hls