ILNews

Court affirms stepfather's visitation rights

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals April 23 affirmed a trial court's decision that a stepfather may continue to have visitation rights with his stepdaughter even though the mother wanted his visitation rights terminated.

In Nicole A. Shaffer v. Robert J. Schaffer, No. 22A04-0709-CV-513, Nicole requested Robert's third-party stepparent visitation rights with her daughter, M.S., be terminated because it was in her daughter's best interest to not have any more contact with Robert. Nicole and Robert were married when she had a child by another man; Robert knew the child was not biologically his, was listed as the father on the birth certificate, and raised the girl as his daughter. When the Shaffers divorced, Nicole was awarded sole custody and Robert was granted visitation because of his custodial relationship with the young girl. DNA testing when M.S. was almost 6 confirmed Charles Moon was the biological father of M.S., and Moon was awarded parenting time as well.

Robert filed a petition to modify visitation in 2007; Nicole asked that the court terminate his visitation rights because he is not the biological father. Nicole wanted Robert's rights terminated because she believed M.S. would be confused by spending time at three different households, and she wanted her daughter to develop a father-daughter relationship with Moon.

The trial court reduced Robert's visitation rights and denied Nicole's request for termination of visitation.

Nicole believed the trial court violated her fundamental right as a parent to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her child, citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). In Troxel, the U.S. Supreme Court held a Washington grandparent visitation statute unconstitutionally infringed on the fundamental rights of a parent and ruled it is for the parent to decide whether a relationship between the grandparents and child would be beneficial.

Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote the appellate court agreed with Nicole that cases involving initial grandparent visitation rights should be extended to stepparent visitation proceedings.

However, in the instant case, the court is asked to rule on a visitation modification, not the initial visitation determination.

Judge Vaidik cites Francis v. Francis, 654 N.E.2d 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), which dealt with third-party stepparent visitation issues. In that case, Robert Francis petitioned the court to enforce his initial visitation order with two children he raised as his own with his ex-wife, Anita, until he discovered a different man fathered both children. Anita wanted the visitation reduced after she married the children's biological father. The trial court expanded Robert Francis' visitation because it was in the best interest of the children, which the appellate court affirmed.

The issue in Shaffer in modifying visitation is whether the modification is in the best interest of M.S., wrote Judge Vaidik, because the existence of a custodial and parental relationship between M.S. and Robert was already established when he was originally awarded visitation.

Nicole needed to show why Robert's visitation rights should be terminated, but the trial court ruled she didn't introduce any evidence to show termination would be in M.S.'s best interest. As the appellate court ruled in Francis, a parent's mere protest that visitation with a third party would somehow harm the family isn't enough to deny visitation in all cases, especially when the third party cared for the children as his own, wrote Judge Vaidik.
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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT