ILNews

Court rules on grandparent custody, visitation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an opinion handed down Wednesday afternoon, the Indiana Supreme Court held that once a minimal burden has been met by a biological parent, it is up to a third party to prove that it's in a child's best interest to be placed in or remain in the custody of the third party. The high court also ruled that a grandparent must pursue visitation rights under the Grandparent Visitation Act instead of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines or de facto custodian statute.

The central issues in the case In Re the Matter of the Paternity of K.I., by grandmother and next friend, J.I., v. J.H., No. 13S05-0805-JV-213, are what standard a trial court should apply when ruling on a parent's petition to modify custody of a child who is already in the custody of a third party; and what role, if any, the presumption in favor of the natural parent plays in a modification proceeding.

K.I. remained in the care of her grandmother, J.I., for more than 18 months and during that time, J.H. exercised his visitation rights. The trial court then granted J.H. custody of his daughter and granted J.I. visitation consistent with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

The grandmother appealed, claiming the wrong legal standard was applied for custody modifications from a grandparent to the natural parent and the court abused its discretion in awarding custody to J.H. The father cross-appealed the grant of visitation under the Parenting Time Guidelines.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the award of custody to J.H. and remanded for a determination on whether parental presumption had been overcome and if modification was in K.I.'s best interest. The appellate court also said if J.H. got custody on remand, then the trial court had to determine whether the grandmother should have visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act or de facto custodian visitation.

The Supreme Court decided that the distinctions between the statutory factors required to get initial custody and those needed for a subsequent custody modification aren't significant enough to justify substantially different approaches in resolving custody disputes, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

A natural parent seeking to modify custody has a very minimal burden of establishing the statutory requirements for modification showing it's in the best interest of the child and there's been a substantial change in one or more of the enumerated factors, wrote the justice. Once that burden has been met, it's up to the third party to prove the best interests of the child are to remain with the third party. J.I. failed to carry her burden, and the high court affirmed modification of custody in favor of J.H.

J.I.'s visitation should have been examined under the Grandparent Visitation Act, not the Parenting Time Guidelines or the de facto custodian visitation act. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision on the visitation and remanded with instructions to enter appropriate findings and conclusions consistent with the opinion and the Grandparent Visitation Act.

The opinion was originally posted with the full names of the grandmother and father, but removed and amended in accordance with the Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G)(4)(d), which became effective Jan. 1, 2009. That rule says orders, opinions and decisions issued by the appellate court shall be publicly accessible but each appellate court should exclude the names of the parties and affected parties from public access, except as essential to the resolution of litigation or appropriate to further the establishment of precedent or the development of the law.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Natural custody RIGHTS
    WHY did the Father NOT get Custody in the first Place? Did he have Counsel? Bauer v McClure 1996--Pub. Law 104-193--ACCESS by Non-Cust. So.Car. --Foster Care kids RETURNED to BIOLAOGICAL PARENT

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT