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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT