ILNews

Adoption statute allows for subsequent consents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The statutes governing adoption and public policy don't prohibit the execution of subsequent adoption consents, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In In the matter of the adoption of A.S., D.S., C.S., and J.S., minor children, by next friend M.L.S., No. 49A02-0901-CV-60, M.L.S. appealed the probate court's ruling denying her petition to adopt A.S., D.S., C.S., and J.S., and the grant of the petitions by V.S. and L.S. to adopt the children. Except for J.S., V.S. and L.S. had been granted consents to adopt the children after consent was already given to M.L.S. When the adoptions were granted, consents had been granted to M.L.S., V.S., and L.S.

M.L.S. argued because her consents granted first weren't withdrawn by the court, they should remain in effect and any other consent is void. But there's no basis in the adoption code for holding that all subsequent consents are void, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. In addition, allowing competing petitions and subsequent consents gives a probate court a choice between two families to decide if placement with one of them is in the child's best interest. It also avoids a race to obtain parental consent and allows biological parents whose rights haven't been terminated yet and the county Department of Child Services to address changing circumstances.

It was changing circumstances that led to consents being granted to V.S. and L.S. to adopt the children. After the parents and Marion County DCS consented to M.L.S. adopting the children, but before a hearing was held, MCDCS received a report that M.L.S.'s three adopted children were inappropriately touching A.S., D.S., C.S., and J.S. This led to them being removed from the home and placed with V.S., and L.S., a mother and adult-daughter who lived together in the same home.

M.L.S. also argued on appeal that the probate court erred by issuing an adoption decree when the previous judge who heard all the evidence died before issuing a final ruling. The appellate court determined M.L.S. waived this argument because there's no indication in the record she objected to the authority of the new judge to issue the final adoption decree based on the evidence.

The appellate court also ruled the adoption decree was adequate. M.L.S. claimed the probate court erroneously adopted the cross-petitioner's proposed findings verbatim and the court erred in finding the criminal matter involving M.L.S.'s son was still open at the time of the decree. Adopting findings verbatim isn't prohibited, wrote Judge Vaidik; the court did err in finding the case against the son remained open at the time of the ruling because it had been dismissed prior to the ruling. This doesn't justify a new trial because other evidence shows the children up for adoption were allegedly abused by other children in the home and placement with V.S. and L.S. was in the children's best interest.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT