ILNews

Judges uphold denying visitation to ex-partner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today that lawmakers didn’t intend to allow parents to establish joint custody with third parties under Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-3 by simply filing a joint petition with a trial court. Doing so would allow parents and third parties to circumvent the requirements of the Adoption Act.

“We conclude that Indiana Code section 31-17-2-3 does not contemplate the creation of a shared custody arrangement between a parent and a nonparent, regardless of the consent of the parties,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias in M.S. v. C.S., No. 03A01-1003-DR-140, in which a woman challenged the trial court’s ruling to vacate a previous custody and visitation order after she and her same-sex partner broke up.

C.S. had a child with donor sperm while she and M.S. were a couple. They filed a joint petition to determine custody, in which they sought joint legal custody and for M.S. to have parenting time. In September 2007, the trial court granted the petition; after the couple broke up, the trial court held it had no legal authority to enter the previous order and voided it. After a hearing in 2010, the trial court vacated the September 2007 order.

In addition to arguing the order was valid under I.C. Section 31-17-2-3, M.S. also claimed the 2007 order was binding because the parties consented to its entry. She wanted the appellate court to extend I.C. Section 31-15-2-17 to cover her situation because the protections provided by the dissolution statues should apply to all children, regardless of whether they are born into a traditional family or not.

“While we are mindful of the needs of children born into nontraditional families, we must also interpret the statute according to its plain and ordinary meaning. We … are further constrained to leave the public policy determinations attendant to the regulation of legal relationships within nontraditional families to the legislative branch of our government, the General Assembly,” wrote the judge.

The appellate court also rejected M.S.’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion by modifying the custody and parenting time schedule in the 2007 order without a petition to modify or show substantial change in circumstances; and that she is entitled to parenting time with S.S.

Because the original order was void ab initio and a legal nullity, there was no legally effective custody or parenting time schedule to modify, wrote Judge Mathias. In addition, M.S. waived any claim on appeal that she is the child’s legal parent, so she isn’t entitled to parenting time with the child.

The judges cited King v. S.B., 837 N.E.2d 965, 966 (Ind. 2005), in which the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court grant of the mother’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the mother’s former domestic partner was not necessarily precluded from being awarded some of the relief sought. The ex sued to be recognized as the child’s legal parent or to be awarded continued visitation with the child.

“Assuming without deciding that third-party visitation is not limited to former stepparents based on our supreme court’s holding in King, we conclude that M.S. is not entitled to visitation with S.S.,” wrote the judge.
 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT