ILNews

Court reverses interstate surrogate adoption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed an adoption order granted to a New Jersey man of twin girls born by a surrogate in Indianapolis, ruling the Indiana trial court failed to comply with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

In the case In the matter of the adoption of Infants H.; Marion County Division of Indiana Department of Child Services v. Stephen, No. 29S02-0904-CV-140, Stephen filed a petition for adoption of twin girls born in Indianapolis to a woman from South Carolina using donor sperm and eggs. The twins were released to Stephen by the trial court in Hamilton County pending a final hearing and waived the statutory requirement of prior written approval of a licensed placement agency or the Marion County Office of Family and Children, now the Department of Children.

Later, it was discovered that Stephen wasn't a resident of Indiana but was living and working in New Jersey. Stephen initially claimed the twins were biracial and hard to place, but they were not; he later said they were hard to place because they were a sibling group. Adoptions to non-Indiana residents can be approved for statutorily defined "hard to place" children.

The Department of Children became involved in the case when hospital workers called the organization after Stephen visited the hospital with a pet bird and had bird feces on his coat and seemed unconcerned about potential health risks. Marion Superior Court ordered the twins as children in need of services and placed them in the custody of DCS. It was after the CHINS investigation that Stephen claimed the twins were hard to place.

The trial court ordered at a final hearing a six-month period of supervision of the placement of the twins with Stephen, entered a final decree of adoption, dismissed the CHINS case, and ruled consent to adoption by the DCS wasn't required.

The justices decided to leave open the residency question and instead looked at three other issues in the case.

Hamilton County wasn't the proper venue for this adoption hearing as Stephen, the children, nor the placing agency were living or located in Hamilton County. In situations such as this case, the adoption court should transfer the matter to the county where the children are located, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

The adoption court also erred by dispensing, solely on Stephen's request, DCS's statutory role to provide prior written approval of the adoption before DCS even knew about the adoption. DCS only learned of the adoption because of the CHINS proceeding.

Finally, the adoption court failed to completely comply with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, which is used when children are sent to live with adoptive parents in another state. There are certain conditions for the placement of children set forth in the compact which are designed to provide complete and accurate information regarding the children and their adoptive parents. Indiana's central Compact office contacted New Jersey's Compact office to evaluate Stephen's suitability as an adoptive parent, but he declined to participate saying he was an Indiana resident. There is also nothing in the record that a New Jersey home study was sent to the adoption court saying the adoption would or wouldn't be in the best interest of the children, wrote the chief justice.

Indiana retains jurisdiction over the twins because of the compact, wrote Chief Justice Shepard. The final order of adoption is reversed for want of compliance with the compact and remanded with direction to comply with it and thereafter issue a further judgment accordingly. The order granting Stephen preliminary custody remains in effect pending completion of this directive and any eventual orders the trial court may enter.

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 don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT