Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2014, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging that M.B., a minor child, was a child in need of services (CHINS). While the CHINS case was still pending, M.B.'s paternal aunt and uncle (Aunt and Uncle) filed an independent action seeking custody of M.B. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that Aunt and Uncle did not have standing to bring an independent custody action and that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear the independent custody matter while the CHINS case was pending in the juvenile court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Aunt and Uncle had standing to bring the independent custody action; and (2) the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the independent custody action but should have stayed the proceedings and abstained from exercising its jurisdiction until the CHINS action concluded. Remanded to the circuit court. View "In re Custody of M.B." on Justia Law

When Father and Mother initially divorced they had joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. The trial court subsequently granted an agreed order giving primary physical custody to Father. The parties continued to share joint legal custody. Later, Mother filed a petition for modification of custody and a verified motion for rule to show cause why Father should not be held in contempt for not complying with the court’s legal custody order. The trial court denied both of Mother’s requests. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) some of the trial court findings regarding the custody issue were erroneous, and (2) Father was in contempt for making unilateral decisions about the child’s education and by not sharing information with Mother. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Mother’s motions for custody modification and for contempt, as there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that a custody modification was not in the child’s best interests and that Father’s failure to abide by the court’s legal custody order was not willful. View "Steele-Giri v. Steele" on Justia Law

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their daughter, determining that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child’s removal will not be remedied and that termination is in the child’s best interests. Father appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s determinations that the conditions that led to the child’s placement outside of the home will not be remedied; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion that termination was in the child’s best interests. View "A.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs." on Justia Law

Wife and Husband divorced in 2007. Husband later filed a motion to modify spousal maintenance, arguing that maintenance should be revoked entirely because of Wife’s remarriage. The trial court denied Husband’s petition and ordered him to pay Wife’s attorney fees. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Wife’s marriage to “a man of significant means” constituted a substantial change in her ability to support herself. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court, holding (1) the trial court’s findings supported its judgment that Wife’s finances had not changed so substantially that revocation of maintenance was warranted; and (2) because the trial court’s award of maintenance is affirmed, so likewise is its award of attorney fees. View "Gertiser v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife signed an agreement to arbitrate the issues in their divorce under the Family Law Arbitration Act (FLAA). The family law arbitrator entered conclusions of law providing for legal and physical custody of the parties’ child to be granted to Wife, Husband to pay certain child support obligation, the division of the marital property, Husband to pay certain spousal maintenance costs, and Husband to pay $95,000 of Wife’s attorney’s fees. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the arbitrator’s decision. Husband appealed the arbitrator’s attorney fee award. Wife cross-appealed other issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the appellate consideration of an FLAA award, the proper standard of review is the same standard of appellate review that applies to the review of trial court decisions in marriage dissolution cases; and (2) in this case, the family law arbitrator’s award satisfies that standard, and Husband failed to establish that the award of attorney’s fees is not supported by the arbitrator’s findings. View "Masters v. Masters" on Justia Law

The trial court found Child was a Child in Need of Services. Because Father was incarcerated, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) attempted to provide services only to Mother. Ultimately, DCS filed for termination of parental rights due to Mother’s lack of progress and Father’s inability to care for Child due to his incarceration. At the termination hearing, Father maintained that upon his release he was prepared to be a better parent and to stay drug-free. The trial court ultimately terminated both Mother and Father’s parental rights. Father appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights, holding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable probability that Father could not remedy the conditions for removal or that Father posed a threat to Child’s well-being. View "K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs." on Justia Law

The child at issue in this case (Child) had a close relationship with her maternal grandparents (Grandparents) from the day she was born. The child’s mother (Mother) passed away when Child was eight years old. In accordance with Mother’s wishes, Grandparents filed for visitation rights with Child under the Grandparent Visitation Act. After a hearing, the trial court determined that it was in Child’s best interest to have a meaningful and ongoing relationship with Grandparents. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the entirety of the trial court’s order granting grandparent visitation, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding grandparent visitation and in setting the amount of grandparent visitation. View "In re Visitation of L-A.D.W." on Justia Law

The child at issue in this case (Child) had a close relationship with her maternal grandparents (Grandparents) from the day she was born. The child’s mother (Mother) passed away when Child was eight years old. In accordance with Mother’s wishes, Grandparents filed for visitation rights with Child under the Grandparent Visitation Act. After a hearing, the trial court determined that it was in Child’s best interest to have a meaningful and ongoing relationship with Grandparents. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the entirety of the trial court’s order granting grandparent visitation, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding grandparent visitation and in setting the amount of grandparent visitation. View "In re Visitation of L-A.D.W." on Justia Law

After I.B. and W.B. were removed from their parents, both their paternal and maternal grandmothers petitioned to adopt them. The trial court found that it was in the best interests of the children for the maternal grandmother and her fiancé to adopt them the maternal grandmother had a prior felony conviction that statutorily disqualified her from adopting. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the statutory disqualification was unconstitutional as applied because it amounted to an irreubttable presumption in violation of due process. The Supreme court granted transfer and reversed, holding that the statute is constitutional, despite its harsh consequences under the facts of this case. View "In re Adoption of I.B." on Justia Law

Jason and Justina Kramer hired Catholic Charities to facilitate the adoption of E. After M.S. gave birth to E., the Kramers took E. home with them. The Kramers subsequently learned that R.M. had registered as the putative father of E. The Kramers nonetheless petitioned to adopt E., and R.M. contested the adoption. R.M. received full custody of E. after E. had been in the Kramers’ custody for eight months. The Kramers brought a negligence action against Catholic Charities, alleging that Catholic Charities should have checked the putative father registry prior to placing E. with them, or, alternatively, that Catholic Charities had a duty to disclose its failure to conduct a pre-placement check of the registry. The trial court granted summary judgment for Catholic Charities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable Indiana statute does not impose the requirement of a pre-placement registry check; and (2) the Kramers failed to demonstrate that Catholic Charities had any duties with respect to the putative father registry in excess of its statutory obligations. View "Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc." on Justia Law