ILNews

Judges reverse adoption completed while mother was out of state

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the grant of an adoption petition by a child’s paternal grandparents, finding the matter was surrounded by irregular and fraudulent circumstances.

In In Re the Adoption of M.P.S., Jr.; A.S. v. M.P.S., Sr., M.S., and An.S., No. 88A01-1108-AD-387, mother A.S. appealed the grant of adoption of her son by M.S. and An. S., the mother and stepfather of M.P.S. Sr., who is the father of M.P.S. Jr. The boy was born out of wedlock to the young parents, who married and then lived in Virginia before moving to Indiana to live with the father’s mother and stepfather. At some point the parents moved back to Virginia with their son to live with M.P.S. Sr.’s father and stepmother, but eventually moved back to Indiana and lived with the grandparents.

M.S. and An. S. sought to adopt M.P.S. Jr. The parents met with the grandparents’ attorney, but did not have their own attorney. The parents signed consent for the adoption, which was notarized by the attorney, but her notary commission had recently expired. She also advised the parents the consents were revocable up until the adoption hearing.

The parents were to go to Virginia to take a sibling of M.P.S. Sr. so the sibling could live with his parent in Virginia. M.P.S. Sr. quickly moved up the trip so that he and his wife would be out of town during the adoption hearing. They had not received notice of the hearing. While in Virginia, M.P.S. Sr. left A.S. behind in the middle of the night. While she was gone, she learned her son had been adopted. M.P.S. Sr. continued to live with his mother and stepfather.

The COA reversed, finding numerous procedural errors, involuntariness and fraud upon the court. It appeared the trip was planned to keep the mother from withdrawing her consent. Also, at the hearing, the grandparents testified that the child had lived with them his whole life, which was incorrect.

In addition, A.S. signed her consent for adoption under the premise that her living conditions would not change and she would continue to live with her son.

The judges remanded with instructions to vacate the adoption decree and to comply with Indiana Code 31-14-13-1, which vests sole legal custody of a child born out of wedlock to the biological mother.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT