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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT