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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT