COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Elder and Senior Judge Willis Argued at Chesapeake , Virginia

VICTOR CAMPOS MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2465

- 10

- 1 CHIEF JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR. OCTOBER 11, 2011 CHARLES HINSCH

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Jerrauld C. Jones , Judge Rodney D. Malouf (Thomas & Associates, P.C., on brief) , for appellant. Ryan B. Graves ; Romy L. Radin, Guardian ad litem for the minor child (Tavss Fletcher ; Radin & Rad in, P.C., on brief) , for appellee.

V ictor Campos (“appellant”), the putative biological father of A.B., appeals an order permitting the adoption of A.B . by Charles Hinsch (“appellee”)

. 1 Appellant , who was incarcerated in Prince William County at the tim e of the hearing , asserts the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (“trial court”) abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance of the hearing to permit his presence at a later date

. Finding no error, we affirm the ruling of the trial co urt.
I. BACKGROUND C.G.A. (“the birth mother”) , an unmarried minor, became pregnant in late spring or early summer of 2008. In November 2008, prior to the child’s birth, the birth mother signed an
entrustment ag reement naming appellee as the adoptive par ent of the child and surrendering t he

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 The child is identified herein as A.B.- 2

- child to his care at birth . On December 18, 2008, appellee, by counsel, mailed a certified letter to appellant notifying him of the entrustment and proposed adoption and informing him of his right to register with t he Virg inia Putative Father Registry, pursuant to Code § 63.2

- 1250. The certified
letter to appellant was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as “unclaimed.” A.B. was born on January 29, 2009. A search of the Putative Father Registry on that date reveal ed that appellant had not registered. A.B

. , who left the hospital with appellee , has resided with appellee since birth. On November 4, 2009, appellee petitioned the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for the City of Norfolk (“JDR d istrict c our t”) to adopt A.B. The birth mother consented in writing to appellee’s adoption of A.B

. Appellant never visited or contacted A.B., and clearly did
not visit or contact him within six months of the filing of appellee’s petition for adoption

. 2 Appellant di d not execute a consent to the adoption of A.B. by appellee

. The JDR d istrict c ourt appointed counsel to represent appellant during the adoption proceedings. Appellant’s appointed counsel was thereafter present at each he aring held in the JDR district c o urt and trial court related to A.B.’s adoption by appellee. On August 4, 2010, at the hearing on A.B.’s adoption by appellee, the JDR d istrict c ourt
found that appellant’s consent to appellee’s adoption of A.B. was being withheld contrary to the
best inter ests of the child , and permitted appellee to proceed with the adoption of A.B. Appellant appealed the JDR d istrict c ourt’s granting of appellee’s petition to adopt A.B. to
the trial court . A hearing on appellee’s petition for adoption was scheduled for No vember 1, 2010.
P rior to October 21, 2010, appellant was incarcerated in Prince William County . On October 21, 2010, the trial court ordered , inter alia , that “ [ t ] he trial will proceed on November 1, 2010 (despite

2 Code § 63.2

- 1202(H) provides, in pertinent part, that “[n] o consent [to adoption] shall be required of a birth parent who, without just cause, has neither visited nor contacted the child for a period of six months prior to the filing of the petition for adoption. ”- 3

- incarceration of [appellant] [in Prince William County] ).” 3 Appellant’s attorney endorsed the
October o rder as “seen and objected to .” No specific objections to the trial court rulings were made a part of that order. On November 1, 2010, the trial court heard appellee’s petition to adopt A.B. It ruled , pursuant to Code § 63.2

- 1202(J) , 4 that appellant’s consent to the adoption was not required because appellant failed to appear at the hearing on the petition after notice

. It also noted that appellant’s counsel was present in court. T he trial court ruled , pursuant to Code § 63.2

- 1233(2), 5 that appellant’s consent to the adoption was not required , finding that i t was being withheld contrary to
the best interests of the child . It granted appellee’s petition to adopt A.B . Appellant’s attorney
si gned the November 1, 2010 order as “seen and objected to,” but failed to articulate any specific objection s to the trial court’s rulings. This appeal followed. No transcript or s tatement of f act s of the proceedings was made part of the record on appeal p ursuant to Rule 5A:8

. 6

3 The order entered on October 21, 2010 contained several other rulings of the trial court, including the approval of Detective Gill of the Prince William County Police Department to testify telephonically and that a guardian ad litem was not necessary for appellant because he was represented by appointed counsel who was present in court for the hearing.

4 Code § 63.2

- 1202(J) provides that “[t] he failure of the nonconsenting party to appear at any scheduled hearing, either in person or by counsel, after proper notice has been given to said party, shall constitute a waiver of any objection and right to consent to the adoption. ”

5 Code § 63.2

- 1233(2) provides, in pertinent part:
If the [trial] court finds that consent is withheld contrary to t he best interests of the child,

. . . or is unobtainable, it may grant the petition without such consent and enter an order waiving the requirement of consent of the nonconsenting birth parent and transferring custody of the child to the prospective adoptive parents. No further consent or notice shall be required of a birth parent who fails to appear at any scheduled hearing, either in person or by counsel.

6 Rule 5A:8 provides, in pertinent part, that a transcript becomes part of the record on appeal “when it is filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court within 60 days after entry of the final judgment.” Rule 5A:8(a). A written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript becomes part- 4

- II. ANALYSIS Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance
of the adoption hearing to permit him to be present at a later date. “[T] he decision to grant or deny a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. ” Snyder v. Commonwealth , 10 Va. App. 67, 70, 389 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1990). Absent “ ‘ a showing of
abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice to the movant , ’ ” we will not reverse the ruling of the trial

court on a mo tion for a continuance on appeal

. Mabe v. Wythe County Dep’ t of Soc. Servs. , 53
Va. App. 325 , 333, 671 S.E.2d 425 , 429 (2009) (quoting Haugen v. Shenandoah Valley Dep’ t of
Soc. Servs. , 274 Va. 27 , 34, 645 S.E.2d 261, 265 (2007) )

. A party aggrieved by a ru ling of a trial court is required to provide a complete record to the appellate court to permit it to adjudicate the asserted errors of the trial court

. Patterson v. City of
Richmond , 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764

- 65 (2003). Here, appellant fa iled to file transcripts or written s tatements of f act s pursuant to Rule 5A:8
from either the October 2010 hearing, ordering the adoption hearing to be held in November, or the
November 2010 adoption hearing

. However, a ppellant asserts that he preserved h is assertions of error by his noting his objection s on the October and November orders. Without a transcript or written statement of facts from the hearings themselves , we are unable to determine whether appellant provided the trial court any basis for his request for a continuance, and whether he lodged specific and timely objection s to the trial court’s ruling deny ing his requested continuance. A transcript or written statement of facts is “indispensable” to the resolution of appellant’s assignment of er ror. Turner v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986 )

. Because appellant failed to comply with Rule 5A:8 by failing to provide

of the record on appeal when it is filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court within 55 days after entry of the final judgment and signed by the trial judge . Rule 5A:8(c).- 5

- transcripts or a written s tatement of f acts reflecting his objections and rulings of the trial court on
th ose objections , we will not consider on appeal his contention that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for a continuance. Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii) (“ When the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written st atement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by such omission shall not be
considered. ”)

. III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed

.