ILNews

Court: grandparent visitation survives adoption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State statute clearly allows grandparent visitation to survive a child's adoption by another biological grandparent, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

In a unanimous decision today in Elizabeth and Terry Baker v. Donnie Lee, No. 36A01-0807-CV-340, the appellate panel affirmed a lower ruling from Jackson Circuit Judge William Vance.

The case involves three children who were born out of wedlock between 1995 and 2002, and whose parents were incarcerated multiple times because of substance abuse. Lee is the maternal grandfather and Elizabeth Baker is the paternal grandmother, who with her husband received guardianship of the children and allowed Lee to visit on an informal basis.

A Scott Circuit judge granted Lee formal visitation in 2007, and the Bakers adopted the kids later that year through Jackson Circuit Court. The visitation became the debatable issue, and Judge Vance determined that Lee's right to see his grandchildren survived the adoption and couldn't be defeated by "the legal gymnastics this case exemplifies."

Since the Bakers moved to Florida, the court-ordered visitation was seven weeks of the school summer vacation and one week during the school winter vacation.

On appeal, the Bakers contended that Lee couldn't have visitation because after the adoption he was no longer a "grandfather," and that he hadn't previously established visitation rights under the existing Grandparent Visitation Act, outlined in Indiana Code § 31-17-5-1.

The appellate panel disagreed, noting the legislature's intent to extend special protection for existing grandparent ties by post-adoptive visitation. The judges also found that because Lee is a grandparent of children born out of wedlock, he is classified as a qualifying relative under the state statute and able to see and obtain an order for visitation.

"The legislature did not carve out an exception for an adoptive biological grandparent who is married to a non-relative of the adoptee(s)," Judge Mark Bailey wrote. "It is logical to assume that many, possibly most, adoptive parents have a spouse who is also an adopting parent. In essence, the Legislature did not require that every party to the adoption be related to the adopted child or children."

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT