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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT