[Cite as In re C.M., 2020-Ohio-2834.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN RE: C.M. 

 

 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2019CA00078 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Licking County 

Probate Court, Case No. 20190380 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 7, 2020 

APPEARANCES: 

Appellant J.M., Pro Se Appellee O.S., Pro Se 

982 Woodlawn Avenue 593 Ridgefield Road 

Newark, OH 43055 Newark, OH 43055
[Cite as In re C.M., 2020-Ohio-2834.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant appeals the July 16, 2019 judgment entry of the Licking County 

Probate Court granting the application for name change filed by appellee. 

Facts & Procedural History

{¶2} On May 20, 2019, appellee O.S. filed an application for change of name of 

a minor. Appellee is the Mother of C.M., who was born on February 10, 2009. Appellee 

filed the application seeking to change the name of C.M. to C.S. Appellee consented to 

the application, while appellant J.M., the child’s father, objected to the application. In the 

application, appellee requests a name change so that C.M.’s last name matches her 

mother’s name, her stepfather’s name, and the last name of her siblings. 

{¶3} The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the application on July 16, 

2019. The trial court issued a judgment entry on July 16, 2019. In the judgment entry, 

the trial court found that proper notice of the application and hearing date was given. The 

trial court further found that reasonable and proper cause exists for changing the name 

and the name change is in the best interest of the minor. The trial court ordered the name 

of C.M. be changed to C.S. 

{¶4} Appellant appeals the July 16, 2019 judgment entry of the Licking County 

Probate Court and assigns the following as error: 

{¶5} “I. THE PROBATE COURT DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO 

SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT ENTRY OF MINOR NAME CHANGE AND THE NAME 

CHANGE IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. 

{¶6} “II. FATHER DID HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH C.M., THOUGH THE 

JUDGE SAID HE DID NOT.” 
Licking County, Case No. 2019CA00078 3 

Transcript 

{¶7} On November 4, 2019, appellant filed a motion to supplement the record 

with a transcript. Appellee filed a motion to exclude transcripts on November 20, 2019. 

This Court issued a judgment entry on the motions on December 3, 2019. In our judgment 

entry, we stated that appellant may supplement the record with any transcripts on or 

before December 20, 2019, “however, appellant is required to follow the appellate rules 

with regard to the transcription and official court reporter.” Further, this Court stated that 

if appellant failed to submit a transcript that complies with the appellate rules, appellee 

may file a new motion to exclude. 

{¶8} Appellee filed a new motion to exclude on December 30, 2019. On January 

27, 2020, this Court issued a judgment entry granting the motion to exclude and striking 

the transcripts filed by appellant. This Court stated, “it does not appear appellant has 

complied with App.R. 9(B) regarding the transcript preparation.” 

{¶9} Thus, upon review, we find appellant has failed to file a transcript of the 

lower court proceedings. An appellant is required to provide a transcript for appellate 

review. Knapp v. Edwards Labs., 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). Appellant 

has the burden of demonstrating error by reference to matters within the record. State v. 

Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 372 N.E.2d 1355 (1978). Where portions of the transcript 

necessary for resolution of the assigned errors are omitted from the record, an appellate 

court has nothing to pass upon and we must presume the validity of the lower court’s 

proceedings. State v. Ridgway, 5th Dist. Stark No. 1998CA00147, 1999 WL 100349 

(Feb. 1, 1999), citing Knapp v. Edwards Labs., 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). 
Licking County, Case No. 2019CA00078 4 

I. & II. 

{¶10} In his assignments of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its 

discretion in granting the name change. Appellant specifically argues the name change 

was not in C.M.’s best interest and the trial court failed to properly take into consideration 

appellant’s testimony about his relationship with C.M. 

{¶11} R.C. 2717.01 grants the authority for a probate court to make name 

changes on behalf of a minor child. The standard for deciding whether to permit a name 

change is “proof that * * * the facts set forth in the application show reasonable and proper 

cause for changing the name of the applicant.” R.C. 2717.01(A); In re Willhite, 85 Ohio 

St.3d 28, 1999-Ohio-201, 708 N.E.2d 778. In determining whether a reasonable and 

proper cause for a name change has been established, a court must consider the best 

interest of the child. Id. A probate court’s determination of whether a proposed name 

change should be granted will only be reversed if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id. 

A reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court. Id. An 

abuse of discretion “connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the 

court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 

5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 

{¶12} Appellant contends the trial court failed to consider C.M.’s best interest in 

making its decision. However, the trial court’s judgment entry contains a specific finding 

that the name change was in C.M.’s best interest. To the extent appellant contests the 

sufficiency of this finding, due to the lack of transcript, we must presume the regularity of 

the proceedings and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Labs., 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 

(1980). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the proposed name 
Licking County, Case No. 2019CA00078 5 

change was in C.M.’s best interest. See In re Hoke, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-1159, 

2003-Ohio-2329. 

{¶13} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in 

stating during the hearing that appellant did not have a relationship with C.M. Appellant 

contends he did have a relationship with C.M. The trial court’s judgment entry provides 

there is reasonable and proper cause for the name change. Since appellant is 

challenging the trial court’s statements during the hearing and appellant has failed to 

provide this Court with a transcript, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings 

below and affirm. We additionally note that parental failure to maintain contact with and 

support the child is only one of the factors a court should consider in determining whether 

the name change is in the best interest of the child. Bobo v. Jewell, 38 Ohio St.3d 330, 

528 N.E.2d 180 (1988). 
Licking County, Case No. 2019CA00078 6 

{¶14} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶15} The July 16, 2019 judgment entry of the Licking County Probate Court is 

affirmed. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Wise, John, J., 

Delaney, J., concur