ILNews

Grandmother can't petition for visitation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A grandmother has lost her right to petition for visitation rights after her son’s parental rights were terminated, so the trial court was correct in dismissing her petition, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday.

Grandmother M.S. was granted visitation with her two grandchildren during the dissolution of her son’s marriage and after the divorce was finalized. But she violated a provision of the visitation order that prohibited the grandchildren from seeing their father while in the grandmother’s care. The children’s mother petitioned to terminate M.S.’s visitation rights due to her failure to abide by the order, which the trial court granted.

M.S. filed a motion to correct error and reconsider, which were denied, and she didn’t appeal the order.

Nearly two years later, M.S.’s son had his parental rights terminated and the children were adopted by the mother’s new husband. Then, M.S. filed a petition to modify grandparental visitation, alleging she had previously been granted visitation rights and there had been a substantial change in circumstances that warranted her visitation rights to begin again. That petition was denied by the trial court and the petition was dismissed.

In In Re: The Marriage of J.D.S. and A.L.S.; M.S. v. A.L.S., No. 63A01-1102-DR-64, M.S. argued she had “vested” visitation rights with the children before the termination of her son’s parental rights and the adoption by the stepfather, so she has standing to seek modification of the recent visitation order. Although she had established visitation rights when she had standing to do so originally, she lost those rights at the time her son’s parental rights were terminated, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb. There were also no rights to survive the children’s adoption.

The chief judge also noted that the trial court didn’t only order M.S.’s visitation stopped; it terminated her right to visitation.

“In order to regain grandparent visitation rights following this order, Grandmother would have had to petition for those rights and establish standing anew. Because she did not file her petition until after Father’s parental rights were terminated, Grandmother no longer had standing as the parent of the children’s parent, and there were no existing visitation rights upon which to bootstrap continued visitation in the wake of the adoption,” wrote the chief judge.

 

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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT