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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT