In Re the Adoption of B.C.H.
2014 Ind. LEXIS 992
| Ind. | 2014Background
- B.C.H. lived with her maternal grandparents, who were the primary caregivers for about 45 months from birth; the mother visited roughly weekly and later this increased to twice weekly.”
- The mother, unmarried at birth, lived near the grandparents and had limited ongoing contact; the grandparents provided daily care and financial support without help from the mother.
- In 2010, the mother married Stepfather, who filed a petition to adopt B.C.H. without notice to the grandparents; the adoption was granted in August 2011.
- In September 2011 the mother removed B.C.H. from the grandparents’ home and limited contact; the grandparents sought custody and later were deemed de facto custodians by a juvenile court.
- The trial court concluded the grandparents lacked custody rights at the time of the petition and thus were not entitled to notice or consent; this ruling was appealed and transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes lawful custody under Ind. Code § 31-19-9-1(a)(3)? | Grandparents argue de facto custody should count as lawful custody. | Mother/Stepfather contend only court-ordered custody qualifies as lawful custody. | Lawful custody is not limited to court-ordered custody; it includes noncourt-ordered, legitimate caregiving arrangements not contrary to law. |
| Were the Grandparents lawful custodians when the adoption petition was filed, entitling notice and consent? | Grandparents maintained they were lawful custodians due to long-term caregiving. | Lack of a court order means they were not lawful custodians. | Grandparents were lawful custodians at the relevant time; they must be given notice and an opportunity to consent or withhold consent. |
| Does granting de facto custodian status after the fact affect their rights at the adoption proceedings? | Post-hoc de facto custodian status supports rights to participate. | Only fixed, preexisting lawful custody rights matter at filing. | De facto custodian status does not retroactively defeat rights; the Grandparents’ lawful custody existed for notice/consent purposes, and the case is remanded for a best-interests hearing. |
| What is the remedy on remand given the Supreme Court's interpretation? | Remand with rights to consent/participation. | Maintain adoption unless best interests require updating. | Vacate the adoption, remand for best-interests determination, with Grandparents allowed to give or withhold consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. 2013) (court may not read words into statutes that aren’t present)
- Merritt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. 2005) (statutory analysis assumes intentional word choice)
- In re Adoption of B.C.H., a Minor, 7 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (definition of de facto custodian and lawful custody context)