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. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  2. Low energy. Next!

  3. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  4. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  5. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

ADVERTISEMENT