Court holds order is not a final action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from a father, holding that an order regarding an adoption petition is not a final judgment.

In In Re the Adoption of S.J., R.W. v. G.C. and J.C., No. 04A03-1110-AD-449, R.W., the biological father of S.J., appealed an order that stated his consent was not required for his stepsister and her husband to adopt S.J.

S.J. was born out of wedlock to mother B.R.L. in May 2005. Although R.W. has not legally established paternity, mother and father agree that R.W. is S.J.’s biological father.

R.W.’s stepsister, J.C., and her husband, G.C., were appointed as S.J.’s legal guardians in 2008 and have had continued custody of S.J. since that time. J.C. and G.C. filed a petition to adopt S.J. on June 15, 2011. Father filed his “Motion to Contest Adoption” on July 8, 2011. On Sept. 2, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of whether R.W.’s consent to the adoption was required. On Sept. 2, 2011, the trial court issued an order concluding that R.W.’s consent to the adoption was not required. The court also indicated that if all other statutory requirements were met, the petition may proceed to a final hearing.

R.W. appealed, but the COA held that the order from which R.W. appealed is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order and therefore dismissed the appeal sua sponte.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer