In Re The Paternity of B.J.N. by Next Friend, E.M. v. K.N. and On Consolidated Appeal, In Re the Guardianship of B.J.N., E.M. v. P.C.
19 N.E.3d 765
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- B.N., born 2009, was adjudicated to have Father (E.M.) as his father by an Illinois court in Feb 2011; B.N. later was placed with P.C. (Guardian) in Decatur County, Indiana in March 2013 with the parents' consent.
- On April 16, 2013 Guardian filed for and the Decatur Circuit Court immediately granted guardianship over B.N.
- Father, living in Hendricks County, later registered his Illinois paternity order in Hendricks County (Oct 23, 2013) and moved in Decatur to vacate the guardianship as void for lack of jurisdiction (filed Oct 24, 2013).
- The Decatur Court denied Father’s motion to vacate and, after a hearing, restricted Father’s parenting time and ordered supervision (Nov 8, 2013).
- Father filed a petition to modify custody in Hendricks County (Dec 11, 2013); Hendricks Court dismissed that action (Feb 4, 2014) and awarded Guardian attorney fees; appeals from both courts were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Decatur Court lacked jurisdiction to appoint guardian | Father: registering paternity in Hendricks (after the Decatur order) gave Hendricks exclusive jurisdiction over custody | Guardian/Decatur: Decatur had subject-matter and case-specific jurisdiction; Father consented to guardianship | Decatur had subject-matter jurisdiction; Father waived objection to case-specific (UCCJA) jurisdiction by consenting; denial of vacatur affirmed |
| Whether Decatur abused discretion by restricting parenting time without explicit finding of danger | Father: court required express finding that parenting time might endanger child’s physical health or impair emotional development | Guardian: evidence of drug/alcohol history, prior neglect, and an incident where child was injured supported restriction | Abuse-of-discretion standard; record contained evidence of danger; restriction and supervised time affirmed |
| Whether Hendricks Court erred by dismissing Father’s paternity/modification action | Father: Hendricks was proper forum to register paternity and modify parenting time | Guardian: Decatur’s earlier guardianship action raised same custody issues and had exclusive control; dismissal appropriate | Dismissal affirmed: once Decatur exercised jurisdiction over same subject matter, Hendricks was precluded from deciding custody |
| Whether Hendricks Court properly awarded attorney fees | Father: award unsupported by record of parties’ finances | Guardian: statute permits fees in parenting-time modification actions | Award reversed: court failed to consider parties’ resources/ability to pay as required when determining fee reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 9 N.E.3d 745 (Ind. Ct. App.) (discussing concurrent jurisdiction and preclusion where custody matters already before another court)
- Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 799 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App.) (distinguishing types of jurisdiction: personal, subject-matter, case-specific)
- Williams v. Williams, 555 N.E.2d 142 (Ind.) (UCCJA limits are waivable and do not equate to subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Lollar v. Hammes, 952 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. Ct. App.) (consent waives objections to court’s case-specific jurisdiction)
- In re Paternity of Fox, 514 N.E.2d 638 (Ind. Ct. App.) (rule that courts of concurrent jurisdiction cannot both decide the same subject matter once one has assumed control)
- A.G.R. ex rel. Conflenti v. Huff, 815 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. Ct. App.) (trial court must consider parties’ resources when awarding attorney fees in parenting-time matters)
- Foor v. Town of Hebron, 742 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. Ct. App.) (judgments by courts lacking subject-matter jurisdiction are void; those lacking case-specific jurisdiction are voidable)