Judges disagree on whether grandfather can adopt

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues