ILNews

Court must make findings in denying visitation for imprisoned dad

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man released to probation on a murder conviction but subsequently ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence following probation violations failed to persuade the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse denial of his request for parenting time.

Wade R. Meisberger was sentenced to 48 years in prison in the early 1990s for murder and theft in Monroe County for the killing of Michael Sawyer. He was released to probation in 2007 and fathered a child, E.M., in 2008 with Margaret Bishop, to whom he was married briefly.

The couple divorced and, in 2012, Meisberger’s probation was revoked. But he continued to push for parenting time in pro se filings, and in December 2013 the couple appeared for a hearing after which a judge found “[Mother] is opposed to parenting time at [the DOC], is opposed to transporting [E.M.] there, and indicates [Father’s] parents do not want to transport the child either.”

The judge also found that Meisberger had been a consistent part of the child’s life for only one of his five years, " and, thus, it is not in his best interest to have in person parenting time within the confines of a prison facility."

The Court of Appeals remanded the matter, finding the Jefferson Circuit Court did not make a finding regarding the endangerment of the child’s physical health or significant impairment of the child’s health, safety or emotional development as required under I.C. 31-17-4-2.

“Under these circumstances and recognizing that Mother did not file an appellee’s brief, we remand for the trial court to determine and make one or more findings as to whether the child’s physical health or safety would be endangered or whether there would be significant impairment of the child’s emotional development by allowing Father parenting time, or, in its discretion, to conduct other proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel.     

The case is In re the Marriage of: Wade R. Meisberger v. Margaret Bishop f/k/a Margaret Meisberger, 39A01-1402-DR-76.

 

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