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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT