ILNews

COA rules Marion County had exclusive jurisdiction over custody of boy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed an order out of Montgomery County regarding custody and parenting time of a boy because that court could not properly exercise jurisdiction. Marion County had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of the boy.

M.B. and N.S. were appointed guardians of B.C. by Marion Superior Court, Probate Division, July 31, 2012. M.B. is the boy’s maternal grandfather. At this time, paternity had not been established. J.C., the boy’s biological father, filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, support and parenting time in Montgomery Circuit Court Dec. 19, 2012. In May 2013, the guardians filed a petition for adoption in Marion Superior Court.

At issue in In the Matter of the Paternity of B.C., M.B. and N.S. v. J.C., 54A01-1309-JP-398, is whether Montgomery Circuit Court or Marion Superior Court had jurisdiction to determine the custody of B.C.

The Court of Appeals found the Marion Superior Court had jurisdiction to enter its July 31, 2012, order appointing M.B. and N.S. as guardians over B.C. because, at that time, J.C. had not yet filed his verified petition to establish paternity. And based on statute, Montgomery Circuit Court was authorized to enter its order Dec. 20, 2012, establishing paternity because the issue of whether J.C. was B.C.’s father was not an issue pending before Marion Superior Court.

But the Montgomery Circuit Court was precluded from entering its July 5, 2013, order finding that the guardians should retain physical custody of B.C. at that time, that J.C. and the biological mother share joint legal custody, and that both parents should have parenting time. The guardianship, paternity, and adoption proceedings all relate to custody – a subject that was properly before the Marion Superior Court due to the guardianship action, the appeals court held.

The judges found that I.C. 31-19-2-14, which governs the exclusive jurisdiction when a petition for adoption and a petition to establish paternity are pending at the same time, controls rather than I.C. 31-30-1-1(3).

“While the Guardians did not cite Ind. Code § 31-19-2-14 to the Montgomery Circuit Court, they did request a transfer of the case to the Marion Superior Court, albeit to the guardianship proceedings, and the evidence presented at the hearing in the Montgomery Circuit Court included mention of the adoption petition filed by the Guardians,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote.

“Because the petition for adoption and the paternity action were pending at the same time, the court in which the petition for adoption had been filed had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C. Accordingly, the Montgomery Circuit Court could not properly exercise jurisdiction to enter its July 5, 2013 order as the Marion Superior Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C., and the Marion Superior Court erred when it dismissed the guardianship and adoption proceedings. We reverse the Montgomery Circuit Court’s July 5, 2013 order and remand with instructions for the Marion Superior Court to comply with all provisions of Ind. Code §§ 31-19 and 29-3.”
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. OK, now do something about this preverted anacronism

  2. William Hartley prosecutor of Wabash county constantly violates people rights. Withholds statement's, is bias towards certain people. His actions have ruined lives and families. In this county you question him or go out of town for a lawyer,he finds a way to make things worse for you. Unfair,biased and crooked.

  3. why is the State trying to play GOD? Automatic sealing of a record is immoral. People should have the right to decide how to handle a record. the state is playing GOD. I have searched for decades, then you want me to pay someone a huge price to contact my son. THIS is extortion and gestapo control. OPEN THE RECORDS NOW. OPEN THE RECORDS NOW. OPEN THE RECORDS NOW.

  4. I haven't made some of the best choices in the last two years I have been to marion county jail 1 and two on three different occasions each time of release dates I've spent 48 to 72 hours after date of release losing a job being denied my freedom after ordered please help

  5. Out here in Kansas, where I now work as a government attorney, we are nearing the end of a process that could have relevance in this matter: "Senate Bill 45 would allow any adult otherwise able to possess a handgun under state and federal laws to carry that gun concealed as a matter of course without a permit. This move, commonly called constitutional carry, would elevate the state to the same club that Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming have joined in the past generation." More reading here: http://www.guns.com/2015/03/18/kansas-house-panel-goes-all-in-on-constitutional-carry-measure/ Time to man up, Hoosiers. (And I do not mean that in a sexist way.)

ADVERTISEMENT