In Re the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children C.B.M. and C.R.M.: C.A.B. v. J.D.M. and K.L.M.
992 N.E.2d 687
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Natural Mother (C.A.B.) had parental rights terminated (TPR) in Jan 2008; she appealed the TPR judgment.
- While that TPR appeal was pending, the Twins' foster parents (J.D.M. & K.L.M.) obtained DCS consent and finalised an adoption in summer 2008 without notifying Natural Mother (statute did not require notice after TPR).
- In Sept 2008 the Court of Appeals reversed the TPR, concluding DCS had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that reunification was unwarranted (Moore). Natural Mother then moved to set aside the adoption.
- The trial court denied relief; the Court of Appeals reversed on alternative grounds; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reviewed de novo the Rule 60(B) motion resolved on paper.
- The Supreme Court held the adoption was voidable under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(7) because the adoption was "based on" the TPR judgment that was later reversed, so the adoption must be set aside and the adoption petition reset for a contested hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Natural Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Adoptive Parents/DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adoption mooted the TPR appeal or required Mother to seek a stay of the TPR to preserve appellate relief | Adoption pending appeal does not extinguish Mother's appellate rights; she should not be forced to seek a stay to preserve due process | Mother should have sought a stay; adoption provides permanency and moots the appeal if no stay was sought | Court: Mother was not required to obtain a stay; DCS/shared parties had responsibility to inform the appellate court of post-judgment events |
| Whether the adoption was void or merely voidable after reversal of the underlying TPR | Adoption is void (due process violation) because Mother received no notice/consent and the TPR was reversed | Adoption is valid or at most subject to Rule 60(B)(8) requiring a meritorious defense | Court: Adoption is voidable under Trial Rule 60(B)(7) (no meritorious-defense requirement) because the adoption was "based on" the reversed TPR judgment |
| Standard and availability of Rule 60(B) relief when subsequent judgment relies on a reversed prior judgment | Relief under 60(B)(7) is available when a later judgment depends on the reversed prior judgment; no need to prove meritorious defense | Relief should require showing of meritorious defense under 60(B)(8) or be barred by finality/need for permanency | Court: 60(B)(7) applies where second judgment depends on the first; movant need not show meritorious defense; trial court abused discretion in denying relief |
| Remedies and interim procedures after setting aside adoption | Mother sought vacatur and contested hearing; interim custody and services needed | Adoptive Parents stressed children's need for permanency and stability | Court ordered vacatur of adoption, reset adoption for contested hearing, directed notice to Mother, and allowed trial court to address temporary custody under statutory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (recognition of constitutional protection for parent-child relationship)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (standard and protection for termination of parental rights)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental interests carry special respect in court)
- Cunningham v. Hiles, 402 N.E.2d 17 (Ind. Ct. App. reh'g opinion; parties must inform appellate court of post-judgment events affecting appeal)
- Dempsey v. Belanger, 959 N.E.2d 861 (Rule 60(B)(7) applies where second judgment is based on first)
- Moore v. Jasper Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 894 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. Ct. App. decision reversing the TPR below)
- In re Visitation of M.L.B., 983 N.E.2d 583 (parental rights are fundamental; best interests do not automatically override parental rights)
- Kaler v. Bala (In re Racing Servs., Inc.), 571 F.3d 729 (federal authority construing relief where later judgment rests on earlier reversed judgment)