[Cite as DiSanto v. Thomas, 2018-Ohio-1673.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

DORENE E. DISANTO, : PER CURIAM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2017-L-133

 - vs - : 

THOMAS L. THOMAS, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case 

No. 2015 CV 00603. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

Brett J. Plassard, 1875 West Jackson Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For PlaintiffAppellee). 

Thomas E. Thomas, pro se, 3568 Highway 301 South, Nahunta, GA 31553 

(Defendant-Appellant). 

PER CURIAM 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Thomas L. Thomas, appeals the judgment of the 

Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, determining custody and 

support issues with regard to the minor child, A.R.D. The issue before this court is 

whether an appellant may challenge a trial court’s jurisdiction where he did not appear 

at trial or otherwise present evidence in support of his claim. For the following reasons, 

we affirm the decision of the court below. 
 2

{¶2} On April 23, 2015, plaintiff-appellee, Dorene E. DiSanto, filed a Complaint 

for Custody (Emergency Ex Parte) against Thomas with respect to A.R.D. DiSanto was 

granted emergency custody and the matter was set for pretrial. 

{¶3} On May 8, 2015, Thomas filed a Motion for Objection to the grant of 

emergency custody, arguing, inter alia, “that this Honorable Lake Co Court 

Judge/Magistrate lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction over this Pro Se Defendant and the 

Native American Child/Minor based upon the fact * * * [t]hat the Native American 

Child/Minor * * * is a Registered Member of the Penbina [sic] Nation Little Shell Band of 

North America * * * and exclusive Subject Matter Jurisdiction rests with the Tribal Court, 

Federal Courts, and/or will be Transferred to the US District Court over Federal 

Questions of Law, pursuant to Federal Law as determined by the US Supreme Court.” 

{¶4} Thomas further claimed that “a Original ‘Complaint For Child Custody, 

Child Support, and Show Cause’ entitled THOMAS L. THOMAS V. DORENE E. 

DISANTO et al, Case No: 15V-078 [was] pending in the Great State of Georgia in the 

Honorable Brantley Co Superior Court.” 

{¶5} On May 20, 2015, Thomas filed a Complaint/Counter-Complaint/Motion 

for: Custody, Visitation, Child Support, Objection to DNA Testing, and Habeas Corpus 

of Child (filed May 20, 2015). 

{¶6} On October 4, 2017, a trial was held at which Thomas failed to appear. 

{¶7} On October 6, 2017, the juvenile court issued a Judgment which held, in 

part: 

Based on the testimony and exhibits this Court finds that plaintiff 

has established that Defendant Thomas L. Thomas is the father of 

[A.R.D.] born May 9, 2003 and that the parent child relationship 

exists. 
 3

The court further finds that the parties separated on 11-4-2013 and 

that the minor child has been living exclusively with mother and 

maternal grandmother since that time. 

The court further finds that father’s income is unknown as he has 

not filed tax returns for several years. 

* * * 

Parenting time for father will be considered upon proper motion with 

this Court. 

* * * 

Father Thomas L. Thomas has a duty to support A.R.D. and child 

support shall be as outlined in the Child Support Worksheet 

attached hereto with [an] effective date of 11-4-2013. 

{¶8} On October 23, 2017, Thomas filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, 

Thomas raises the following assignments of error: 

{¶9} “[1.] Did Lake Co. Juvenile Trial Court Judge Karen Lawson act 

maliciously and corruptly without subject matter jurisdiction, abuse her discretion, create 

manifest injustice, structurally err, plain err, and/or violate this Native American 

defendant-appellant’s [sic] of his clearly established equal protection right to due 

process of law, and right not to be discriminated against based upon 

gender/religion/nationality by systematically granting temporary custody to 

plaintiff/mother in Ohio after the plaintiff/mother admitted that in her affidavit for custody 

that a[n] original child custody and parental kidnapping was already pending in the State 

of Georgia, and the plaintiff/mother was homesteading in the State of Georgia, not 

Ohio.” 

{¶10} “[2.] Did both the reassigned and initial trial court judges/magistrate act 

maliciously and corruptly without subject matter jurisdiction, abuse their discretion, 
 4

create manifest injustice, structurally err, plain err, and/or violate this pro se Jewish 

Native American defendant-appellant’s [sic] of his clearly established federal 

constitutional rights protected under the equal protection clause, due process of law, 

access to the courts, and federal law since: (A) the original child custody and parental 

kidnapping case was pending in the State of Georgia; (B) the herein interstate child 

custody case was lawfully removed and still remains pending in federal court; and/or (C) 

the initial and reassigned Lake Co. Court of Common Pleas judges are currently being 

represented in pending federal class action lawsuit for acting unlawfully maliciously and 

corruptly without subject matter jurisdiction at Ohio taxpayers[’] expense.” 

{¶11} Thomas argues that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction because the 

federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction and/or the issue of A.R.D.’s custody was 

pending in a Georgia court. 

{¶12} We must necessarily find that Thomas’ arguments are without merit as 

they are unsupported by anything in the record. 

{¶13} It is fundamental that a reviewing court may only decide an appeal based 

on the record before it. State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978), 

paragraph one of the syllabus (“[a] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record 

before it, which was not a part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the 

appeal on the basis of the new matter”). This court has held that “[i]f appellant cannot 

demonstrate the claimed error then we presume the regularity of the trial court 

proceedings and affirm the judgment.” (Citation omitted.) Patterson & Simonelli v. 

Silver, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-055, 2004-Ohio-3028, ¶ 31. 
 5

{¶14} In the present case, the record before us lacks evidence to support 

Thomas’ claims, such as evidence of A.R.D.’s membership in the Pembina Nation or 

pending legal proceedings regarding A.R.D.’s custody in Georgia. Thomas’ attempt to 

file an Affidavit in Support and Statement in Lieu of Transcript is unavailing. Assuming, 

arguendo, that it complied with Appellate Rule 9(C), Thomas did not appear at the 

October 4, 2017 trial and is, therefore, wholly incompetent to submit a statement of 

evidence presented at the trial. Appellate Rule 9(C) is not a proper vehicle for 

introducing evidence into the record that was not presented before the trial court. 

{¶15} The statement contained in DiSanto’s original Complaint that, “Defendant 

Thomas L. Thomas initiated an action in Georgia partially involving custody of [A.R.D.],” 

is insufficient in itself to demonstrate that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to 

determine A.R.D.’s custody and support. 

{¶16} The assignments of error are without merit. 

{¶17} For the forgoing reasons, the Judgment Entry of the Lake County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant. 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J., 

concur.