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

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.”

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.

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