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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT