ILNews

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.”

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT