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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  2. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  3. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  4. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

  5. Mr. Foltz: Your comment that the ACLU is "one of the most wicked and evil organizations in existence today" clearly shows you have no real understanding of what the ACLU does for Americans. The fact that the state is paying out so much in legal fees to the ACLU is clear evidence the ACLU is doing something right, defending all of us from laws that are unconstitutional. The ACLU is the single largest advocacy group for the US Constitution. Every single citizen of the United States owes some level of debt to the ACLU for defending our rights.

ADVERTISEMENT