Amy L. Brown v. Adrian Lunsford, 63 N.E.3d 1057

Background

Amy Brown and Adrian Lunsford lived together in Kentucky; Brown’s daughter S.B. (born 2007) lived with them from ~16 months to age 4; Brown and Lunsford separated and Brown moved to Indiana (later Tennessee).
Lunsford is not S.B.’s biological father; he is the biological father of Brown’s other child, A.L.; paternity and support proceedings concerning A.L. were pending in Vanderburgh Superior Court.
Lunsford petitioned (via a “Petition to Modify” in the paternity case) for visitation with S.B., claiming a parental/step-parent relationship; S.B. had not visited Lunsford for extended periods and reportedly did not want to visit.
The trial court granted Lunsford visitation with S.B. (one weekend per month during his parenting time with A.L.); Brown moved to correct error and argued lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of standing/necessary party, and that the visitation order abused discretion.
The Court of Appeals concluded Brown waived her procedural challenges (UCCJA/jurisdiction and failure to join S.B.), but reversed the visitation order on the merits because the trial court failed to give special weight to a fit parent’s decision and did not make the required best-interest analysis for third-party visitation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (Lunsford)	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction under the UCCJA to order visitation with nonresident S.B.	Trial court lacked jurisdiction because S.B. was not an Indiana resident and no proper initial custody action for S.B. was commenced.	Court had authority to adjudicate related matters in the paternity docket and parties litigated the issue.	Waived: Brown raised UCCJA/jurisdiction arguments too late (in motion to correct error); not a true subject-matter defect.
Whether S.B. was a necessary party in the paternity action and failure to join renders judgment void.	Lunsford’s use of the paternity case without joining S.B. as a necessary party invalidates the judgment/order.	Prior precedent limits consequence of nonjoinder to voidable (not automatically void); procedural joinder could have been raised earlier.	Waived: Brown did not timely move to join or raise the issue during trial; failure to join is waived.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding third-party (nonparent) visitation to Lunsford.	Trial court abused discretion; Brown is a fit parent who terminated visitation for S.B.’s welfare and the court failed to accord her decision special weight or make required best-interest findings to overcome parental presumption.	Lunsford argued he had acted in a parental/step-parent capacity and maintaining his bond with S.B. was in her best interest.	Reversed: Court abused discretion. Trial court did not apply McCune/Troxel parental-presumption framework or make sufficient findings to overcome a fit parent’s decision.

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Williams, 555 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1990) (UCCJA jurisdictional limitations are waivable and concern authority over a case rather than subject-matter jurisdiction)
K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2006) (distinguishing true jurisdictional defects from procedural error; parental decisions receive protection)
R.L. Turner Corp. v. Town of Brownsburg, 963 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2012) (clarifies nature of jurisdiction in Indiana trial courts)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (Due Process protects fit parents’ fundamental right to make child-rearing decisions; courts must give special weight to a fit parent’s determination)
Worrell v. Elkhart Cnty Office of Family & Children, 704 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 1998) (third-party visitation requires showing of custodial/parental relationship and best interest)
McCune v. Frey, 783 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial courts must address parental presumption, special weight to parent’s decision, best-interest showing by third party, and whether parent denied or limited visitation)
K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (approves McCune factors and the need for findings in grandparent visitation orders)
A.C. v. N.J., 1 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (recognized standing for a same-sex partner under narrow factual circumstances; court limited that holding to its facts)
Schaffer v. Schaffer, 884 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (applies Troxel and extends parental-presumption analysis to initial stepparent visitation proceedings)
Collins v. Gilbreath, 403 N.E.2d 921 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (caution against broad awards of visitation to unrelated third parties; recognized step-parent visitation in certain custodial/parental-capacity situations)