Court affirms grandparents’ rights to visitation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion which would have denied grandparents visitation rights.

The parents adopted two children in 2012, and the trial court granted the maternal grandparents visitation and ordered a specific visitation schedule the same year. The parents denied the visitation, and the grandparents filed numerous contempt motions. After the parents filed a petition to terminate the grandparents’ visitation rights, the trial court found the parents in contempt of court and ordered the parents to pay the grandparents’ attorney fees, over $19,000 total, and denied the parents’ petition.

The parents claim they thought the order was void, but the Court of Appeals said that is not a valid defense as to why they did not follow it.

The parents also argued that keeping the children from the grandparents was in the children’s best interest, but presented no new evidence at appeal. The parents’ disagreement with the court’s order is not reason enough to not follow the order, which was clear.

The parents also claimed that because the grandparents’ attorney conceded on a few of  the attorney fees, all of the fees should be wiped out, but the court said that is not the case.

Finally, the parents attempted to shift the burden of proof to the grandparents, saying they did not follow the four factors needed to change visitation. However, the parents appealed not an initial order, but a modification, making the motion invalid and shifting blame back to parents. Again, as the parents presented no new evidence, grandparents’ visitation was affirmed.

The case is In the Matter of the Adoption of AA and L.A. J.B. and S.B. v R.C. and N.C., 48A02-1505-AD-328.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....