In Re: The Paternity of H.M.H., Brian Garrett v. Donald Wayne Hall, Jr., Jane Hall, and Trisha Hall (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 05 2019, 10:23 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE Brian Lee Garrett South Mount Sterling, Illinois

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re: The Paternity of H.M.H., September 5, 2019

Brian Garrett, Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JP-454

Petitioner-Appellant, Appeal from the Newton Circuit v. Court The Honorable Jeryl F. Leach, Donald Wayne Hall, Jr.,1 Jane Judge Hall,2 and Trisha Hall, Trial Court Cause No.

56C01-1901-JP-40

Respondents-Appellees

1 Garrett styled the name of this party “Donald Wayne Hall, Jr.,” in his brief, but the caption in the order he is appealing indicates that the party is “Wain Hall.” 2 Garrett spelled the name of this party “Jane Diane Hall” in his brief, but the caption in the order he is appealing indicates that the party is “Jan Hall.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-454 | September 5, 2019 Page 1 of 2

Baker, Judge.

[1] Brian Garrett appeals the trial court’s order denying what Garrett states was a

petition to establish paternity and for visitation. We have no way of reviewing

the petition because Garrett did not file an appendix.

[2] The trial court summarily denied Garrett’s petition, stating that “there are no

legal grounds for granting the relief requested by [Garrett] because of the

standing adoption order.” Appealed Order.3 We have no way of reviewing this

order because we have neither an appendix nor salient facts to consider.

[3] Garrett states that his parental rights have been terminated but that he was not

provided with notice of those proceedings. He also references grandparent

visitation rights as support for his request to establish paternity but does not

explain why grandparent visitation rights are relevant. We have no way of

reviewing these arguments because there is no record to review.

[4] As Garrett has failed to provide us with either an understandable statement of

facts explaining the nature of the case and his claims or the documents needed

to review his claims, we affirm.

[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.

3 The appealed order is appended to the end of Garrett’s brief.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-454 | September 5, 2019 Page 2 of 2