ILNews

COA: Aunt and uncle have no standing for visitation petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana statutes and caselaw do not allow for aunts or uncles of a child to petition for visitation, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Monday.

In Danny R. Kitchen, Jr. v. Rebecca Kitchen (deceased), Michael Lake and Shelly Lake, No. 27A04-1101-DR-14, father Danny Kitchen challenged the grant of visitation to his child’s maternal aunt and uncle. Kitchen and his wife divorced, and his wife and K.K. moved in with Michael and Shelly Lake, where they lived until Rebecca Kitchen died.

The Lakes were given temporary custody of K.K., but the court later granted full custody of the child to Kitchen and awarded supervised visitation to the Lakes in June 2009. Neither party appealed the order. But in March 2010, Kitchen asked the court to vacate the portion of the order granting visitation to K.K.’s maternal aunt and uncle. The trial court denied his motion, finding Kitchen was attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support the visitation order and that time for that challenge had passed.

The trial court erroneously relied on In Re Paternity of J.A.C., 734 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), to conclude it had the authority to grant visitation to the Lakes, the Court of Appeals held. The Lakes’ arguments that King v. S.B., 837 N.E.2d 965 (Ind. 2005) and M.S. v. C.S., 938 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), support their position that Indiana appellate courts are amenable to an expansion of the class of petitioners with standing to request visitation are also misplaced, wrote Judge James Kirsch.

Caselaw or statutes have allowed parents, step-parents and grandparents standing to seek visitation under certain conditions, but that right has never been extended to other third parties.

The judges also determined that Kitchen’s challenge of the visitation order was timely. In the instant case, the trial court lacked the authority to grant visitation to the Lakes because they didn’t have standing to petition for visitation with K.K. Because the lack of standing can’t be cured, that portion of the June 2009 order is void, wrote Judge Kirsch.

The judges remanded the matter for further proceedings.

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. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  2. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT