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. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.