Leon Brooker and Lucy Brown are the unmarried parents of a two-year-old son. Following their separation, Brown was awarded primary physical custody of the child. Proceeding pro se, Brooker filed a petition for a modification in custody and child support, alleging that Brown was negligent in the care of their son and deficient in meeting his medical needs. After conducting an eviden-tiary hearing, the trial court found that there had been no material chаnge in circumstances affecting the child’s well being since the last custody award, denied Broоker’s petition and awarded attorney fees and deposition costs to Brown. Brooker appeals, contending that the trial court erred by excluding copies of the child’s medical records and an audio recording of a telephone voice message; by declining to enforce a subpoena directing a physician to appear аs a witness; and by failing to strike Brown’s testimony in its entirety on the ground that she was guilty of false swearing. Concluding thаt Brooker’s contentions lack any merit, we affirm.
1. As an initial matter, we note that Brooker asserts in several places in his appellate brief and reply brief that the hearing transсript is incomplete and does not accurately reflect what transpired before the trial court. “Where the transcript or record does not fully disclose what transpired [in the court below], the burden is on the complaining party to have the record complеted in the trial court under the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-41 (f).” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Meier v. State,
2. Brooker argues that the trial court erred by not admitting into evidenсe certain copies of his son’s hospital medical records. Notably, Brooker did not make a proffer of these documents when the trial court ruled that they were inadmissible, nоr did he make any attempt to identify the specific contents of the documents for the record and subsequent appellate review. Under these circumstances, “the assignment of error is so incomplete as to preclude its consid
*11
eration by this [CJourt.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Thomas v. State,
3. Brooker also contends that the trial court erred by not admitting into evidenсe an audio recording of a telephone voice message left for him by Brown. The rеcord shows that the trial court reserved ruling on the admissibility of the audio recording until a later stage of the hearing, but Brooker did not thereafter seek to introduce the recording or obtain a ruling on its admission. Where, as here, the trial court reserves ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the subsequent failure to invoke a ruling from that court preserves nothing for appellatе review.
Dasher v. State,
4. Brooker further maintains that the trial court erred by not enforcing a subpoena directing a physician to appear as a witness at the hearing. Because Brooker never obtained a ruling by the trial court as to the enforceability of the subpoena, wе likewise cannot consider this enumerated error. See
Gardiner v. State,
5. Lastly, Brooker argues that the trial court should have stricken Brown’s testimony in its entirety on the ground that she was guilty of false swearing. It is true that under OCGA § 24-9-85 (b), “[i]f a witness shall willfully and knowingly swear falsely, [her] testimony shall be disregarded entirely, unless corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeachеd evidence.” But this statutory subsection applies only in the limited circumstance where the “witness admits [she] swore falsely or when the evidence manifestly establishes purposeful falsification.”
Floyd v. State,
We have reviewed Brown’s testimony at the hearing, and the record is completely dеvoid of any evidence that she acted with a manifest purpose to testify falsely. The triаl court thus did not err in declining to strike Brown’s testimony in its entirety. See
Floyd,
Judgment affirmed.