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 evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that there had been no material change in circumstances affecting the child’s well being since the last custody award, denied Brooker’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 as a witness; and by failing to strike Brown’s testimony in its entirety on the ground that she was guilty of false swearing. Concluding that 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 transcript 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 completed in the trial court under the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-41 f.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Meier v. State , 190 Ga. App. 625 1 379 SE2d 588 1989. See Coates v. State , 222 Ga. App. 888, 889 2 476 SE2d 650 1996. As such, any challenge to the accuracy of the transcript should have been made to the trial court, which “is the final arbiter as to any differences concerning preparation of the record,” rather than to this Court. Nobles v. Prevost , 221 Ga. App. 594, 595 472 SE2d 134 1996.
2. Brooker argues that the trial court erred by not admitting into evidence 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, nor 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 consideration by this Court.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Thomas v. State , 224 Ga. App. 816, 817 1 482 SE2d 472 1997. See Ford Motor Co. v. Reese , 300 Ga. App. 82, 90-91 3 684 SE2d 279 2009; Sasser v. Adkinson , 258 Ga. App. 699, 699-700 574 SE2d 907 2002; Bagley v. CSX Transp. , 219 Ga. App. 544, 547 2 465 SE2d 706 1995.
