ILNews

COA affirms child should be raised with half-siblings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the petition to adopt a child by a couple who have already adopted her half-siblings. Although the couple temporarily dropped their petition to adopt, the judges agreed it is in the child’s best interests to be raised with her siblings.

M.H. was born in 2012 and removed from her mother’s care due to drug use. N.B. and R.B. filed a petition to adopt M.H. a month after her birth. They have five adopted children – including three biological half-siblings of M.H. and one biological cousin of M.H.  W.M. and her adult daughter, S.K., also filed a petition to adopt. W.M. is the maternal great aunt of the biological mother. She is in her 60s and lives alone, but still works. S.K. has two pre-teen aged children.

At a 2013 hearing to adopt M.H., Vanderburgh Superior Judge Brett Niemeier told the parties he had received an email from a fraternity brother that was in favor of N.B. and R.B. He said he stopped reading it as soon as he realized what it was about, and he gave the parties the option to ask him to recuse himself. W.M. and S.K. moved for his recusal, but he denied the motion.

Nearly a month later, N.B. and R.B. decided to stop pursuing the adoption, believing one of their children had cancer and they would need to direct their attention to that issue. The parents had each of their school-aged children write mean letters to W.M. and S.K., saying things like “shame on you,” and “you made kids and adults cry.”

M.H. went to live with W.M.

N.B. and R.B. later resumed their petition for adoption after learning their child did not have cancer. At a hearing, Niemeier said there was no doubt that both families could care for M.H. He cited, among other factors, W.M.’s age, that the children have to sit at separate tables to eat at N.B. and R.B.’s home, the financial situation of N.B. and R.B., and that the attachment factor favors W.M. But he found it important that M.H. grow up with her relatives near her own age, so he granted N.B. and R.B.’s petition to adopt.

In In the Matter of the Adoption of M.H., W.M. & S.K. v. N.B. & R.B., 82A01-1310-AD-449, the judges affirmed, finding that Niemeier did address the concerns that W.M. and S.K. raised on appeal, including R.B.’s health and the family’s financial situation.

The COA also affirmed Niemeier’s decision to not recuse himself. He fully complied with Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9(B) and he adequately explained his reasoning to the parties. He rarely sees the fraternity brother, the man has his email because of fraternity emails, and he can’t recall the last time he saw the man or his family. W.M. and S.K. did not overcome the presumption that the judge acted impartially, the COA ruled.

“Finally, we note our agreement with the trial court that the circumstances of this case are unfortunate and can be made worse were the Appellees to follow through on their statements to deny the Appellants a chance at having a relationship with M.H. W.M. has played an important role in M.H.’s formative years, and she clearly treasures her relationship with M.H. Although we acknowledge that it is beyond the scope of this court’s authority to mandate visitation between the Appellants and M.H., we echo the trial court’s words of encouragement that, as the stress and anger associated with litigation recede, the Appellees will allow for some degree of contact between them,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote.
 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT