In re the Adoption of: E.L.I. (Minor Child), N.I. and R.I. v. P.R.H. (Natural Mother) and R.L.I. (Natural Father) (mem. dec.)
10A01-1702-AD-262
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Child E.L.I. born 2002 to P.R.H. (Mother) and R.L.I. (Father); paternity established and initial joint legal custody with Mother primary physical custodian.
- Grandparents became de facto custodians after 2011 DCS emergency custody following Mother's methamphetamine use and an altercation; paternity court later awarded sole custody to Grandparents.
- Mother incarcerated 2012–2014; after release she sought increased contact and filed to modify custody in 2015, claiming sobriety and employment.
- Grandparents petitioned to adopt in March 2016, alleging Father consented and Mother’s consent could be dispensed with under I.C. §31‑19‑9‑8(a)(2) for one‑year failure to communicate or support.
- Trial court denied adoption and entered eleven findings focused on (1) termination of parental rights, (2) Grandparents’ custodianship, (3) Mother’s contacts while incarcerated and after release, (4) Guardian ad litem recommendations, and (5) concern that financial benefit not control the result.
- Court of Appeals remanded because the trial court’s findings were insufficient: it failed to make necessary findings on whether Mother failed to provide care/support (an independent statutory ground to dispense with consent) and failed to make clear findings whether adoption was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother’s consent could be dispensed with under I.C. §31‑19‑9‑8(a)(2) (one‑year failure to communicate or support) | Grandparents: Mother met statutory criteria (either failed to communicate/significantly or failed to provide care/support) so consent not required | Mother: She communicated with child during/after incarceration and sought visitation; did not fail to support or communicate | Court: Trial court’s findings on communication exist but no finding on failure to provide care/support; remand for specific findings on this statutory ground |
| Whether adoption is in the child’s best interest under I.C. §31‑19‑11‑1(a)(1) | Grandparents: Adoption is in child’s best interest; may confer financial benefits and permanency | Mother: Maintaining parent–child relationship is in child’s best interest; contacts and GAL recommendations support visitation and preservation of parental rights | Court: Trial court did not make required best‑interest findings (or clarify it had found parental consent necessary); remand for explicit best‑interest findings if consent is found not required |
| Whether appellate court should reverse and order adoption granted | Grandparents: Evidence supports adoption and appellate grant | Mother: Opposes reversal; factual issues remain | Court: Declined to reverse because evidence does not lead only to opposite conclusion; remanded for further findings |
| Whether trial court’s written findings satisfied T.R. 52(A) | Grandparents: Findings were inadequate and unclear on dispositive issues | Respondents: Existing findings reflect court’s reasoning (implicit) | Court: Findings insufficient under T.R. 52(A); remand to enter clarified, statute‑based findings without new hearing if based on existing record |
Key Cases Cited
- E.W. v. J.W., 20 N.E.3d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for adoption rulings; clear and convincing burden when consent is missing)
- Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (deference to trial court fact‑finding in domestic relations matters)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (statutory consent requirement for adoption of child born out of wedlock)
- In re Adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (party seeking adoption without consent bears burden of proving statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of T.W., 859 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory grounds in §31‑19‑9‑8 are disjunctive; any one ground suffices)
- Parks v. Delaware Cnty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 862 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate courts will not scour record to find support for judgment; trial court must make necessary findings)
- Marion Cty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (two‑tiered review for T.R. 52(A) findings: evidence supports findings, then findings support judgment)
- In re Involuntary Termination of Parent‑Child Relationship of N.G., 61 N.E.3d 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (remand for proper findings when trial court’s rationale is unclear)