In Re: the Guardianship of M.N.S. J.L.M. v. M.S.S
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 622
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Child born 2003 to Mother and Father; Guardian (Father’s former stepmother) obtained permanent guardianship in 2004 after Mother consented while Father was incarcerated.
- Father was later released, stabilized his life, married, obtained custody of Child’s half-sibling, paid child support, and regained increasing parenting time (from supervised to overnight visits).
- Guardian and Father had a long, hostile history including a protective order, police reports, and litigation; GAL found a strong bond between Guardian and Child but noted Father had improved.
- Father filed to terminate the guardianship in December 2011; multiple hearings and a lengthy in-camera interview with Child were held in 2012.
- Trial court found Father met the minimal initial burden as a natural parent and concluded Guardian failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued placement with her substantially and significantly served Child’s best interests; court terminated guardianship in April 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guardian) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by granting Father’s petition to terminate the guardianship | Guardian: She presented clear and convincing evidence (strong emotional bond; long-term custody/acquiescence) that Child’s best interests are served by remaining with Guardian | Father: As natural parent he met minimal burden; reunification and stability mean guardianship no longer necessary and termination is in Child’s best interests | Court affirmed: Father met initial burden; Guardian failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that continued placement with her substantially and significantly served Child’s best interests |
| Applicable burdens and standard | Guardian: Emphasize bond and acquiescence factors to overcome presumption favoring parent | Father: Presumption favors natural parent; Guardian bears clear-and-convincing burden after father meets minimal showing | Court applied established rule: natural parent has modest initial burden; third party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that custody with third party substantially and significantly serves child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollenga v. 852 N.E.2d 933 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (guardianship findings and orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (parent’s initial burden minimal; third party must overcome strong presumption favoring natural parent)
- Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (deference to trial judges in family law matters)
- In re Guardianship of J.K., 862 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review limits—do not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility)
- In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. 2002) (factors such as bond, acquiescence, or parental unfitness may be considered in third-party custodial claims)
- Roydes v. Cappy, 762 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (apply custody-modification standards to guardianship termination)
- In re I.E., 997 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (affirming termination where guardian failed to show clear and convincing evidence to overcome presumption favoring natural parent)