Court Opinion

ID: 9382353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 14:06:08.441389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.924439
License: Public Domain

[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]                                   OPINION

                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. Huffman for Appellee, Josephine D.
Case No. 15-21-03

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

       {¶1} This appeal is here on remand 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 court 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 judgment 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 third 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 unconstitutional 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 weeks of their petition being filed.

                                          -2-
Case No. 15-21-03

       {¶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 raised 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 (1st 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 overruled.

       {¶4} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Van Wert

County, Probate Division, is affirmed.

                                                                 Judgment Affirmed

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

/hls

                                         -3-