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.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.