[Cite as In re E.S., 2021-Ohio-3797.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

PERRY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN RE: E.S. : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

 : 

 : 

 : Case No. 2021-CA-00011 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2021 C 018 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 25, 2021 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

STEVEN KINGSOLVER & JESSICA L. MONGOLD 

TINA KINGSOLVER Post Office Box 502 

11244 Ridenour Road Lancaster, OH 43130 

Thornville, OH 43076 
Perry County, Case No. 2021-CA-00011 2 

Wise, Earle, J.

{¶ 1} Former legal custodians Steven Kingsolver and Tina Kingsolver appeal the 

May 24, 2021 judgment of the Perry County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division 

granting legal custody of E.S to his paternal grandmother S.W. Plaintiff-Appellee is Perry 

County Children's Services (PCCS). 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} This matter comes before this court following reversal and remand in In the 

Matters of: Z.S, C.S, and E.S., 5th Dist. Perry Nos. 20-CA-00002, 20-CA-00003, 20-CA00004, 2021-Ohio-118, a matter involving legal custody of three minor children. In that 

case we found the 90-day deadline set forth in R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) within which to conduct 

a dispositional hearing had been exceeded and remanded the matter to the trial court 

with instructions to enter an order of dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.1

{¶ 3} Appellants statement of facts and statement of the case are nebulous, 

contain no references to the record, and appear editorial. Moreover, Appellants have 

failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings upon remand. From the available record 

including the judgment entry appealed from, we discern the following events took place 

following our remand to the trial court. 

{¶ 4} Two children had aged out by the time this matter was remanded to the trial 

court on January 19, 2021. On January 26, 2021 PCCPS obtained ex parte emergency 

custody of the remaining minor child, E.S. A new complaint was filed the following day 

and an ex parte review hearing was held. Neither of the Appellants attended. The trial 

1

 Hon. William B. Hoffman dissenting. 
Perry County, Case No. 2021-CA-00011 3 

court found the ex parte order necessary and proper, maintained E.S. in the temporary 

custody of PCCPS, and entered a denial of the complaint on behalf of Appellants. 

{¶ 5} A trial was held on March 3, 2021. Appellants attended. The court heard 

testimony from two PCCPS case workers, a court services worker who testified regarding 

the Appellant's drug testing and level of compliance with drug and alcohol counseling, 

and E.S.'s paternal grandmother S.W. Appellants cross-examined all except S.W. They 

presented no testimony or evidence of their own. 

{¶ 6} At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found E.S. to be a dependent 

child based on the drug activity of Appellants and their refusal to properly complete a case 

plan. The trial court therefore found an award of legal custody of E.S. to S.W. was within 

the best interests of E.S. 

{¶ 7} Appellants timely appealed. They raise one assignment of error for our 

consideration as follows: 

I 

{¶ 1} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RULING AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AFTER HEARING TESTIMONY THAT ELIMINATED THE 

EVIDENCE THAT WAS USED TO BEGIN THE CASE" 

{¶ 2} Appellants appear to advance a manifest weight argument, an analysis that 

cannot be undertaken without a complete record. 

{¶ 3} While we understand Appellants filed this appeal pro se, "like members of 

the bar, pro se litigants are required to comply with rules of practice and procedure." 

Hardy v. Belmont Correctional Inst., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-116, 2006-Ohio-3316, ¶ 9. 

Appellants have failed to provide this court with a transcript of the proceedings below. 
Perry County, Case No. 2021-CA-00011 4 

Pursuant to App.R. 9(B), it is the appellant's duty to file the transcript or any parts of the 

transcript that are necessary for evaluating the trial court's decision. Knapp v. Edwards 

Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). "This is necessarily so 

because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to matters in the 

record." Id. at 199, citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). 

Without the filing of a transcript (or a statement of the evidence or proceedings under 

App.R. 9(C) or an agreed statement under App.R. 9(D)), this court has nothing to pass 

upon and must presume the validity of the trial court's proceedings and affirm. Id. This 

means that "we must presume that the trial court acted with regularity and did not abuse 

its discretion." Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 21, 520 N.E.2d 564 

(1988). 

{¶ 4} Although "an appellate court will ordinarily indulge a pro se litigant where 

there is some semblance of compliance with the appellate rules," Oyler v. Oyler, 5th Dist. 

Stark App. No. 2014CA00015, 2014-Ohio-3468, ¶¶ 18-19, we find the Appellants 

noncompliance with the appellate rules is significant and their brief lacks any cogent 

argument. "[F]airness and justice are best served when a court disposes of a case on the 

merits," however, we find this brief reflects a substantial disregard for the court rules which 

cannot be cured. DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189, 193, 431 N.E.2d 644 

(1982). 

{¶ 5} The Appellants sole assignment of error is therefore overruled. 
Perry County, Case No. 2021-CA-00011 5 

{¶ 6} The judgment of the Perry County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division 

is affirmed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Baldwin, P.J. and 

Delaney, J. concur. 

 

EEW/rw