Mother's rights at issue in COA reversal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a paternity ruling from Vanderburgh County, finding that the judge should have taken a second look at the case after a mother wasn’t given a chance to be properly heard on custody of her child.

In the ruling today in The Matter of the Paternity of M.W. (Child), K.W. (Mother) v. B.J. (Father)  No. 82A05-1010-JP-639, the three-judge panel reversed a ruling from Vanderburgh Superior Court that awarded the father joint physical and legal custody.

Paternity was being established to determine appropriate child support for a child born in May 2010. The trial court held a hearing on those matters, and the mother appeared pro se while the father appeared with an attorney. The prosecutor appeared on behalf of the child on the sole issue of child support.

During that hearing, the father admitted paternity and his counsel told the court the father had not spoken to the mother, but that the father wanted joint physical and legal custody. The mother said she didn’t object to that and wanted support, and the trial court granted the paternity and custody and calculated the child support arrangements.

Within a month of that ruling, the mother hired an attorney and filed a motion to correct error and obtain relief from the trial court judgment. She did so on grounds that she didn’t know custody was going to be addressed, she didn’t completely understand at the time what was happening, and that she wasn’t aware she had the right to counsel or a separate hearing on the issues of custody and that the prosecutor wasn’t representing her. The court’s ruling wasn’t in the best interests of her child and she didn’t believe that was considered adequately, she said. In addition, the mother’s request noted that she had not executed a written statement about support, custody, or parenting time and didn’t file a joint petition regarding those issues. She also filed a motion for an expedited hearing.

The trial court denied the motions Oct. 1, 2010, and this appeal ensued.

In reversing the trial court’s decision, Judge Carr Darden wrote for the appellate court panel that the case should be remanded for a new hearing on custody.

“Although the trial court in this case did conduct a hearing to determine custody, nothing in the record indicates that the trial court considered the best interests of M.W. before determining custody,” he wrote. “Furthermore, Mother was unaware that custody would be at issue during the hearing and at no time during the proceedings did she have the benefit of counsel. Given that something as paramount as custody of a minor child is at issue, we find that Mother has established extraordinary circumstances, warranting relief from judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B).”

Judge Michael Barnes concurred with his colleagues, but wrote separately that he believes the case could have been resolved by addressing the trial court’s denial of mother’s Indiana Trial Rule 59 motion to correct error instead of its denial of her 60(B) motion for relief from judgment.

He wrote that the mother’s lack of objection to the father’s request for joint physical and legal custody does not, in his opinion, amount to a verified written stipulation as required by Indiana Code 31-14-10-3, allowing for a trial court to make those findings without the required hearing if the parents agree to it.

“Although I encourage parents to amicably resolve parenting issues, the minimum requirements of this statute were not met here,” the judge wrote. “Under these circumstances, I believe the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s motion to correct error. As such, I concur in result.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.