ILNews

Justices adopt COA adoption holding, invite attorney fee motions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer on a St. Joseph County adoption case and fully adopted a holding by the state’s intermediate appellate court. In doing so, the state justices invited the prevailing biological mother to request attorney fees because of what it found to be possible frivolous or bad faith efforts.

Justices issued a unanimous order today in The Adoption of N.W., M.W. v. A.W., No. 71S04-1102-AD-87, which adopts the Court of Appeals decision from Sept. 16, 2010, that reversed a ruling by St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth.

This case revolves around N.W., who was born in late 2001 to mother M.W. and father R.W. and lived with them until the parents’ separation in 2005. The parents agreed in a divorce settlement that they would share joint legal custody of N.W., and the father would retain physical custody.

The father married A.W. in early 2009. Stepmother A.W. filed an adoption petition after visitation ceased between mother and child and the biological parents disagreed about visitation, parenting time, and child support.

The trial judge in December 2009 granted the stepmother’s adoption petition and found the mother’s consent wasn’t required because she’d failed to support the child. Judge Nemeth later denied a motion to correct error or grant relief.

The Court of Appeals last year reversed, holding that mother’s adoption consent was required and that “there is not a single shred of evidence indicating that this adoption could even remotely be considered to be in N.W.’s best interest.”

Since then, that ruling and holding has been cited in other appeals before the state’s appellate courts.

Deciding that the appellate panel correctly ruled on the issues, the Supreme Court granted transfer and adopted that opinion under Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(1). Reviewing the lower ruling and materials, the justices also determined more was required under Indiana Code 34-52-1-1.

That state statute permits a court in any civil action to award attorney fees to the prevailing party if the court finds that either party: (1) brought the action or defense on a claim or defense that is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; (2) continued to litigate the action or defense after the party’s claim or defense clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or (3) litigated the action in bad faith.

“The record before us suggests one or more of these grounds may exist for an award of attorney fees,” the order says.

Supreme Court Public Information Officer Kathryn Dolan said that less than once a year the justices might grant transfer and fully adopt a Court of Appeals decision, but it’s even rarer for them to suggest the court might entertain a motion on attorney fees like this.

As the prevailing party, the mother has 60 days to file a request for attorney fees incurred at trial and on appeal under I.C. 34-52-1-1 if she chooses to do so.

Attorneys on the case are listed as South Bend lawyer Mark James for the stepmother A.W., and Michigan City lawyers Craig Braje and Elizabeth Flynn for the mother M.W.

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
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