Judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed as to whether a grandfather could adopt his biological granddaughter but
allow the mother to retain her parental rights under Indiana law.
The majority concluded he could, finding it was in the best interests of the child for the grandfather to adopt. Because
the primary concern in an adoption is the best interests of the child, preventing the adoption on the basis of Indiana Code
Section 31-19-15-1 and -2 would cause an absurd result not intended by the legislature, wrote Judge Elaine Brown for the majority.
Grandfather M.M.’s uncontested petition to adopt his granddaughter was ultimately denied by the trial court. M.M.’s
daughter, M.L.M., is the biological mother of granddaughter A.M. The grandfather’s petition stated that mother isn’t
terminating or relinquishing her legal maternal rights; the biological father consented to the adoption.
The trial court denied the petition because there is no statutory authority allowing a biological parent to maintain parental
rights following the issuance of a decree of adoption by a grandparent. Indiana caselaw allowing a biological parent to maintain
parental rights all share the common issue of an adoptive parent and the consenting parent cohabitating. M.M. does not live
with his daughter.
In
Adoption of A.M.; M.M. v. M.M. & A.C. No. 53A05-1002-AD-71, M.M. wanted the holding in In Re Adoption of
K.S.P., 804 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), to be expanded to include grandparents who don’t live in the child’s
home and who don’t provide primary care for the child every day. The K.S.P. court held that in the spirit of
Indiana’s adoption laws, the legislature couldn’t have intended the “absurd result” that if the trial
court granted Monica Polchert’s petition for adoption of her domestic partners’ children, that her partner Linda
Lutz’s parental rights would be terminated. The court also held that where the prospective adoptive parent and biological
parent are both acting in fact as parents, Indiana law doesn’t require a destructive choice between the two parents.
The majority in the instant case held that the grandfather is considered family under the statute, and while he doesn’t
live with the biological mother, they live close to each other and the grandfather acts as a parent by providing financial
support, taking A.M. to classes, and A.M. stays over at his house often.
Judge Edward Najam dissented because there is not statutory authority for a biological parent to maintain her parental rights
after adoption by a grandparent. Indiana law requires except for a single-parent adoption, that the biological parent and
the adoptive parent be married to each other. It doesn’t matter whether the parents live together and form a family
unit with the child, he noted.
“It is the legislature’s prerogative to establish what policies are to be furthered under the adoption statutes,
including whether an unmarried couple may adopt,” he wrote.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.