ILNews

Andrews: Can you protect the stepparent bond after a divorce?

July 16, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
andrews-julie-mug Andrews

By Julie Andrews

The most important adults in a child’s life are not always the biological mother and father. Most of us are familiar with the Nigerian proverb “It takes a village to raise a child.” It means that the upbringing of a child is a cumulative effort of parents, siblings, distant relatives and even neighbors. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our country has latched on to this theory. In 2013, a reported 1,302,000 children were living with someone other than a parent or grandparent (compared to 1,140,000 in 2012). (See U.S. Census Bureau, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” 2013, Table C2)

On June 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided the conflicting legal rights of parents and grandparents when a grandparent sought visitation with a grandchild in the seminal case of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). This case analyzed the 14th Amendment and a parent’s right to administer the care, custody and control of their children as they see fit. The Troxel Court explained that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Id. at 66. This amendment also “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997). Troxel held that grandparents had the right to seek visitation with a grandchild while balancing the biological parent’s rights. Today, all states, except Florida, have statutes giving grandparents the right to seek visitation of their grandchildren. (Jeff Atkinson, “Shifts in the Law Regarding the Rights of Third Parties to Seek Visitation and Custody of Children,” 47 Fam. L.Q. 1 (2013)). Indiana’s controlling statute is found at Ind. Code 31-17-5-1. A grandparent has standing to seek visitation after a biological parent dies, a divorce occurs or a child is born out of wedlock.

The right of grandparents to seek visitation of a child has expanded to “third-party visitation” by multiple people who have close contact with a child.

High divorce rates, death and paternity situations result in an increased number of blended families dealing with complicated issues. One of these very complicated dynamics is stepparent bonding. In a society that requires both household adults to work, it is not uncommon for a stepparent to spend a significant amount of time with a stepchild, even stepping into a parental role.

A subsequent divorce between a biological parent and stepparent can have a devastating impact on the stepparent/stepchild relationship that often rivals that of a biological parent and child. This relationship is so significant that nine of our states recognize stepparents as having a right to seek visitation of a child. See Atkinson, supra. While Indiana does not have a controlling statute on this issue, the Court of Appeals has held that a stepparent has standing to seek visitation under common law if there is “the existence of a custodial and parental relationship and that visitation would be in the best interests of the child.” Schaffer v. Schaffer, 884 N.E.2d 423, 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

The court will apply the factors found in grandparent visitation cases. Id. The court will consider “(1) the presumption that a fit parent acts in his or her child’s best interests; (2) the special weight that must be given to a fit parent’s decision to deny or limit visitation; (3) whether … visitation is in the child’s best interests; and (4) whether the parent has denied visitation or simply limited.” Id. at 427 (citing McCune v. Frey, 783 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)).

One distinguishing feature between grandparent visitation cases and stepparent visitation cases is the antagonistic nature of the relationship. What is not answered by Indiana’s small body of caselaw on this issue is what it means for a biological parent to “limit” time between a stepparent and stepchild. It is quite easy to find a grandparent visitation case in which the respondent/parent prevails because they offered sufficient time to the grandparent and the grandparent was unable to prove that deference should not be given to the parent’s decision. However, rulings in reported cases on stepparent visitation requests do not defer to parental decisions. A review of the handful of cases that exist on the issue of stepparent visitation reflects that most biological parents agreed to visitation and then sought to modify following a subsequent marriage or having “buyer’s remorse.” In Schaffer, the trial court ordered stepparent visitation. The biological mother later sought to modify and the court not only denied her request but also increased stepfather’s visitation, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

This body of law will continue to grow as families become more blended. Some issues to consider in this area include the fact that visitation rights do not create a reciprocal responsibility for a stepparent to financially support a stepchild. Also for consideration, the court that decides to grant stepparent visitation will have to create a schedule that is cognizant of the other biological parent’s time. At the heart of this issue is doing what is in the child’s best interests. If parents act as mature adults, they should uphold the child’s best interests without court involvement. Ultimately, the child at issue becomes a “hot potato” being passed between mom, dad, grandma and stepparent – the entire village.•

__________

Julie Andrews–jandrews@cohenandmalad.com–is a partner at Cohen & Malad LLP. Her practice is focused on family law matters. Andrews handles a variety of litigation involving contested divorce, child custody, parenting time and guardianship issues. She can be contacted at jandrews@cohenandmalad.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT