ILNews

COA affirms order allowing grandparent visitation with deceased son's daughter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday upheld the order granting visitation to the paternal grandfather of a child whose father killed himself before her birth. But one judge had reservations about the visitation arrangements.

Mother K.L. was legally separated from her husband W.L. when she began a relationship with L.H. in April 2011. She became pregnant and spent time at the home of E.H., L.H.’s father, on occasion during their relationship. In October 2011, L.H., the father of L.L., committed suicide, which led to a break in communication between K.L. and E.H. The father’s attended a baby shower for her and K.L. invited E.H. and his wife to the hospital after L.L. was born. It was later determined that L.H. was the baby’s father.

K.L. and W.L. have reconciled since their divorce. E.H. had been unable to see L.L., despite his requests, so he filed for visitation. The trial court ordered mediation, but it was unsuccessful. The court granted E.H.’s petition and dictated that L.L. would visit E.H. every other Sunday for two hours. The visits would initially be supervised, but later transition to unsupervised.

K.L. appealed, arguing the mediator should have been able to testify that E.H. was the one who made mediation unsuccessful as well as that the visitation should not have been granted. She claimed to have a limited relationship with E.H., was worried he could not care for L.L.’s tubes in her ears properly, and worried the visitation would raise questions about her biological father before K.L. was ready to explain the issue to her child.

In K.L. v. E.H., 29A02-1308-MI-681, the Court of Appeals rejected K.L.’s argument regarding the mediator’s testimony, noting that the trial court made it clear that the statements made during mediation would be confidential and the mediator could not testify. It does not matter that this issue involves visitation of a child, as K.L. argued.

The judges also found no abuse in discretion in granting E.H.’s petition for visitation, citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000), and Indiana Code. The trial court noted limited contact K.L. had with E.H.’s family before and after L.H.’s death, that mother ignored E.H.’s requests for visitation, E.H.’s extensive experience caring for children, and there was no evidence L.L. would be in danger when visiting her grandfather. The court also afforded little to no weight to some of the concerns expressed by K.L.

Judge Margret Robb, in her separate opinion, took issue with the trial court’s lack of consideration to the mother’s concerns and dissented from the majority’s decision to affirm without reservation the visitation order. Robb believed the visitation schedule is not crafted to meet L.L.’s best interests, given how quickly the order increases visitation time and frequency. Robb would remand for the visitation to occur twice a month for two hours under mother’s supervision, with any modifications to be made only after a report to the court.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT