IN THE INTEREST OF C. W., A CHILD.
DILLARD, C. J., RAY, P. J. and SELF, J.
case arises from the juvenile court's dismissal of
notices of appeal from a contempt order issued against
Cynthia Lain and C. W., her minor son, in connection with C.
W.'s delinquency case. On appeal,
appellants assert that the juvenile court erred by
dismissing their notices of appeal. They also raise four
other enumerations of error related to C. W.'s
adjudication of delinquency and the juvenile court's
contempt order. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
C. W.'s adjudication of delinquency, the juvenile court
found Lain and C. W. in contempt for: (1) C. W.'s failure
to appear at a status review hearing and (2) failing to
comply with the terms of C. W.'s disposition order. See
OCGA §§ 15-11-31 (a) and (b) (juvenile court
authorized to find adult and child in contempt). On November
17, 2015, the mother's counsel, Grady Roberts, filed a
notice of appeal from the contempt order, and the mother
filed a notice of appeal from the same order on behalf of her
son. The notices of appeal requested that transcripts from
every hearing in the case be included in the record. On
December 10, 2015, the juvenile court clerk notified Lain and
Roberts that they "will need to provide and pay for the
court transcripts you have requested. Once we receive the
original transcript and a copy we will begin the process of
sending the record to the Court of Appeals. You will need to
make arrangements with a certified court reporter to provide
September 19, 2016, the State moved to dismiss the appeals
because neither Lain nor Roberts arranged for the filing of
the transcripts requested in both notices of appeal. The
juvenile court held a hearing on the motion on October 7,
2016, in which Lain was represented by Roberts. While we do
not have a transcript of this hearing,  the juvenile
court made the following findings from the evidence
The Court finds upon the testimony of the Juvenile Court
Clerk Katie Cunningham that both Ms. Lain and Mr. Roberts
were sent correspondence outlining the process for obtaining
a transcript for appeal. Ms. Cunningham's letters were
sent to the addresses provided by each of them as shown on
their respective Notices of Appeal. The Court finds that Ms.
Cunningham testified that in the 10 months since the
notice[s] of appeal were filed she has not received any
communication from a certified Court Reporter regarding the
acquisition of a transcript. Likewise, the Clerk testified
that she does not recall having any telephone inquiries about
the status of the appeal or confusion on the matter. Further,
the Court finds that Mr. Roberts proffered that his office
had made telephone contact with the Court Clerk in the spring
of 2016. However, the transcript has yet to be produced.
In considering OCGA § 5-6-48, the Court finds that there
has been an unreasonable delay of 10 months which was the
direct result of the inaction and lack of diligence on behalf
of both Grady Roberts and Cynthia Lain. The Court finds that
the delay is inexcusable and a continued effort on behalf of
Ms. Lain to frustrate and delay the orderly operation of this
Court. . . . The Court further finds that the lack of
diligence by Mr. Roberts [was] unreasonable and inexcusable.
upon these findings, the juvenile court granted the
State's motion to dismiss the appeals.
one-sentence argument, Lain contends that the juvenile court
erred by dismissing her appeal for failure to pay costs
because "[t]he clerk of court never prepared a cost bill
nor submitted a cost bill . . . for payment." This
argument has no merit, because Lain incorrectly characterizes
the basis for the juvenile court's dismissal as her
failure to pay costs, rather than her delay in causing the
requested transcripts to be filed. Additionally, based upon
the lack of a transcript of the October 7, 2016 hearing in
this appeal, we must presume that the juvenile court's
findings were supported and that it did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the contempt appeals for failing to
timely file the transcripts. See OCGA § 5-6-42 (party
responsible for filing transcript shall do so within 30 days
after notice of appeal filed); In the Interest of C.
F., 255 Ga.App. 93, 95 (1) (564 S.E.2d 524) (2002);
Miller v. State, 222 Ga.App. 641, 642 (475 S.E.2d
690) (1996); Denson v. Sanders, 155 Ga.App. 583, 585
(2) (271 S.E.2d 715) (1980).
find no merit in Lain's claim that the juvenile court
clerk was obligated to provide the transcripts. In
Miller, supra, we rejected a similar claim, finding
that even an indigent defendant is obligated to take steps to
ensure that a transcript is filed in a timely manner. 222
Ga.App. at 642. OCGA § 5-6-42 places the burden upon the
appellant, not the lower court clerk, to cause transcripts to
be prepared and filed. See, e. g., State v. Hart,
246 Ga. 212, 213 (1) (271 S.E.2d 133) (1980).
cannot consider the claims raised in connection with C.
W.'s adjudication of delinquency on August 20, 2014, as a
notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days. See In the
Interest of D. H., 332 Ga.App. 274, 278 (1) (c) (772
S.E.2d 70) (2015).
holdings in Divisions 1 and 2 preclude us from considering
the merits of the remaining enumerations of error in this
appeal as they relate to the merits of the trial court's
Dillard, C J, and ...