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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT