In Re Paternity of D.T. (Minor Child) Diamond T. Parks (Mother) v. Deante Rashon Tate (Father)
6 N.E.3d 471
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- D.T. born out of wedlock in Anderson, IN (2009); Father listed on birth certificate but paternity not adjudicated. Mother later moved to Mississippi with D.T.
- In July 2011 Mother filed for Medicaid and child support in Mississippi; Mississippi sent an IV-D/UIFSA enforcement/transmittal to Madison County, Indiana to establish paternity and support.
- Indiana court (IV-D/UFISA matter) held a February 19, 2013 hearing where Father admitted paternity and a paternity order issued under the UIFSA cause.
- Father, pro se, filed for full custody in the same UIFSA cause; Indiana court held an April 4, 2013 custody hearing (Mother did not appear and had not received notice) and entered an April 5 custody order awarding Father custody.
- Mother moved to vacate under Trial Rule 60(B)(6) asserting the custody order was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under UIFSA and for lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service; trial court denied relief and Mother appealed.
- Court of Appeals held the Indiana court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under UIFSA to decide custody (no party stipulation), concluded the custody order was void, reversed, and remanded to reinstate UIFSA proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parks) | Defendant's Argument (Tate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana trial court had subject matter jurisdiction under UIFSA to enter a custody order | UIFSA limits Indiana courts to support enforcement; it does not confer jurisdiction to decide custody absent a stipulation — no stipulation here, so custody order is void | Father proceeded within the UIFSA cause and the court treated custody as part of the proceeding (no appellee brief filed) | Court: UIFSA does not confer custody jurisdiction absent stipulation; custody order entered in UIFSA cause is void; reverse and remand to continue UIFSA proceedings |
| Whether trial court had personal jurisdiction over Mother given defective service | Mother did not receive service and did not consent or stipulate to jurisdiction; service was defective so order is voidable | Trial court suggested Mother consented by participating in UIFSA paternity proceedings | Court: Mother did not file the UIFSA petition, did not appear at the paternity hearing, and did not stipulate to custody jurisdiction; trial court’s consent finding was incorrect (court’s view of personal jurisdiction addressed only as it relates to consent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tompa v. Tompa, 867 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review when trial court issues findings under Trial Rule 52)
- Marriage of Thomas v. Smith, 794 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (definition and effect of lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of Truax, 522 N.E.2d 402 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (UIFSA predecessor construed as limiting jurisdiction to support enforcement, not custody)
- Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate standard when appellee fails to file a brief; prima facie error review)