ILNews

COA: Grandma didn't have standing to petition for visitation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the denial of a mother’s request to set aside grandparent visitation, finding the grandmother filed her petition in the incorrect court.

In Visitation of P.V.D. and P.I.D.; P.M. v. K.B., No. 45A03-1102-JM-79, mother P.M. challenged the grant of grandparent visitation rights to her mother K.B. P.M.’s two children were born out of wedlock, but P.M. moved to Illinois to be with their father and the two later married.

Before P.M. married, K.B. filed a petition for visitation in Lake County under the Grandparent Visitation Act. P.M. asked for a hearing to be continued because she was injured in a car accident and unable to travel, but the trial court denied her request and conducted a hearing on the grandmother’s petition. Neither parent of the minor children was present for the hearing.

The trial court concluded that the grandmother had overcome the presumption that the parents’ wishes to limit her visitation were in the children’s best interests, and that both parents should be defaulted for not appearing. The judge ordered K.B. the “maximum grandparent visitation rights allowed under Indiana law,” which included one weekend a month, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, and New Year’s Day.

K.B. later filed a motion to find the parents in contempt of the visitation order. The trial court found the parents in contempt and ordered father to 30 days in jail, which was withheld if he complied with the order. The parents were also ordered to pay K.B.’s attorney fees and allow for double visitation for the next three months to make up for the time that K.B. lost.

P.M. filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that K.B. didn’t have standing to seek visitation under the GVA, which the trial court denied. The trial court found it had jurisdiction by virtue of the children’s relocation to another state less than six months before K.B. filed her petition and the fact that no action for visitation had been filed in Illinois.

But the action should have been filed in Illinois instead of Lake County, the appellate court concluded. Indiana Code 31-17-5-4 requires the grandparent seeking visitation rights to file the petition in a court in the county in which the children reside. In addition, P.M. and her husband haven’t dissolved their marriage in any Indiana court, so under the plain language of the statute, Lake County is not the proper venue for the petition, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.

The judges reversed the denial of P.M.’s motion to set aside the visitation order, and remanded with instructions to rescind the previous order granting K.B. visitation with the children under the GVA. Any future requests for visitation should be filed in the county in which the children live in Illinois.

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT