ILNews

Court denies rehearing in adoption case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court won't reconsider its reversal of an adoption order granted to a New Jersey man of twin girls born by a surrogate in Indiana. In April, the high court ruled New Jersey resident S.M. failed to comply with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children in In the matter of adoption of infants H., Marion County Division of Children's Services v. S.M., No. 29S02-0904-CV-140.

The justices remanded with direction to comply with the compact and thereafter issue a further judgment accordingly. The order granting S.M. preliminary custody remained in effect pending completion of the directive and any other orders the trial court may enter.

S.M. had filed a petition to adopt twin girls born in Indianapolis to a South Carolina woman who used donor eggs and sperm. After it was discovered S.M. wasn't an Indiana resident, he claimed the children were hard to place. The Department of Child Services became involved. Eventually the trial court entered a final decree of adoption, dismissed the CHINS case, and ruled consent to adoption by DCS wasn't required.

In the order denying rehearing released Tuesday, the justices noted that S.M.'s petition for rehearing asks for directives on multiple motions, requests, and objections recently filed in the trial courts by both parties. That activity seems to have been prompted partly by the Supreme Court's ruling but also because New Jersey's child protection authorities have initiated a CHINS proceeding and removed the children from S.M.'s care.

"While pendency of an appeal generally moves jurisdiction over a case from the trial court to the appellate court until a decision on appeal is certified, Petitioner's supplemental appendix reflecting the trial court's recent activity demonstrates that the court amply appreciates that its authority during such a period runs only to emergency matters," the order stated.

Chief Justice Randal T. Shepard and Justices Brent Dickson, Frank Sullivan, and Theodore Boehm concurred with the reasoning of the order. Justice Robert Rucker voted just to deny rehearing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT