This is аn appeal from a decree of adoption. It is an equitable proceeding, and our rеview is de novo. In re Adoption of Ellis,
Herbert Eugene Blanchard, the natural father of Sandra J. Blanchard and Donald L. Blanchard, was divorced from their mother in December of 1959. She has since remarried and is now Dеlores Rippen-kroeger. Her present husband is Francis Rippenkroeger, the petitioner asking аdoption of the two children heretofore named. Herbert Eugene Blanchard has also remarried since the divorce.
There is only one proposition urged for reversal: that Herbert Eugene Blanchard *442 did not consent to the adoption and that section 600.3, Code of Iowa, makes such consent mandatory before an adoption may be permitted under the circumstances existing here. We limit our consideration accordingly.
The applicable part of section 600.3 provides :
“ * * * [T]he consent of both parents shall be given to such adoption unless оne is dead, or is considered hopelessly insane, or is imprisoned for a felony * *
Herbert Eugene Blanсhard did not give his consent to the adoption. At the time of the hearing he was imprisoned in the penitentiary at Fort Madison, Iowa, having been convicted of a felony for violation of section 724.2, Code of Iowa. However, he appeared at the hearing, resisted the adoption, and testified in opposition thereto. The trial court found that Blarichard’s consent was unnecessary under the statute bеcause he was then imprisoned on a felony charge. The sole issue now before us is the claim that such imprisonment was illegal and that the applicable portion of section 600.3 is operative only when the imprisonment is a legal one.
Blanchard was convicted of violating section 724.2, Code, in Jаnuary of 1968. He was sentenced to serve a term of not more than five years in the penitentiary. He аttempted to appeal that conviction, but his appeal was dismissed for failure to file a proper notice. Thereafter he started habeas corpus proceedings, which were decided against him by an opinion of this court filed May 6, 1969. See Blanchard v. Bennett, Iowa,
Nothing аppears in the record concerning the issue here raised except Blanchard’s conviction; his imprisonment in the State Penitentiary; and his unsuccessful attempt, first, to upset his conviction by appeal and, later, to attack it by habeas corpus proceedings.
Blanchard now seeks to establish the illegality of his imprisonment by reciting matters in his brief and argument which are entirely outside the record and were not before the trial court. Subsequent to his unsuccessful attempt at habeas corpus, he instituted proceedings in federal court where it was held refusal to permit his appeal had violated his constitutional rights. He was ordered returned to Lee County district court for re-sentencing with a right to appеal therefrom. These matters appear only in the brief and argument; they are not part of the rеcord.
While our review is de novo, it is de novo only of proceedings had in the trial court. We cannоt consider here evidence which was not presented there. The matters upon which Blanchard now relies are not properly before us. In 4 Am.Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error, section 491, page 933, appеars this statement, “The rights of the parties to an appellate proceeding must be determined on the record before the appellate court. * * * Matters which are simply included in or attaсhed to the record without authority of law do not become part of it and cannot be considered by the appellate court. * * * ” See also 4A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 680, page 512.
In Morrow v. Smith,
Kelly v. Kelly,
We hold we are confined to the record made in the trial court; that the mаtters relied upon by Blanchard are not a part of that record; that the recitation of facts in his brief and argument does not entitle us to consider them; and that on the record made the sole prоposition urged for reversal is without merit.
We therefore hold the decree of the trial court should be affirmed.
Affirmed.