In the Guardianship of S.S. and J.N., Minor Children, Marla New v. Kenneth Scrogham and Teresa Scrogham (mem. dec.), 39A01-1512-GU-2289

Background

Mother (Marla New) has two children: S.S. (born 2004) and J.N. (born 2005); S.S. is the subject of the guardianship petition by paternal grandparents Kenneth and Teresa Scrogham.
April 2014 incident: neighbors called police; officer found Mother exhibiting unusual religious/spiritual behavior (washing children’s feet, throwing away items as "evil"), children frightened; Mother admitted for 11-day psychiatric evaluation; drug screen positive for marijuana.
Temporary guardianship granted to the Scroghams in May 2014; J.N. was briefly returned to Mother but later concerns about parenting persisted for S.S.
Evidence at multiple hearings included testimony from family case managers, a pastor, police officer, guardian ad litem (GAL), and Mother’s mental health records showing diagnoses and history of medication noncompliance.
Trial court’s 19-page order found by clear and convincing evidence that S.S. thrived with the Scroghams, was afraid of Mother’s conduct, and that placement with the grandparents was a "substantial and significant advantage" to S.S.; permanent guardianship was granted and Mother’s motion to correct errors was denied.

Issues

Issue	Mother's Argument	Scroghams' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting guardianship	Mother argued due process violation (Troxel) and insufficient evidence; statute requires guardianship only if "necessary"	Third parties argued burden remains on them and evidence showed guardianship was necessary and in child’s best interest	No abuse of discretion; guardianship affirmed
Due process/Troxel challenge	Mother claimed Indiana’s best-interest test (without requiring unfitness) violates Fourteenth Amendment	Scroghams argued Indiana’s statute and standards afford sufficient protections and are narrower than the statute struck in Troxel	Court held Troxel inapplicable; Indiana framework acknowledged presumption for parents and places burden on third parties, so no due process violation
Sufficiency of evidence / necessity requirement	Mother claimed circumstances were remedied (e.g., J.N. returned, treatment begun) and trial court improperly relied on religion and smoking	Scroghams relied on GAL, witnesses, and detailed factual findings showing ongoing harm/instability to S.S.	Findings supported by record; implicit finding of necessity upheld; evidence clear and convincing
Reliance on Mother’s religious/spiritual beliefs	Mother contended court impermissibly penalized her Native American/Christian practices	Scroghams contended court focused on effect of those practices on child’s safety and welfare	Court concluded decision was based on effect of mother’s conduct on S.S., not on protected religious belief

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (plurality) (parental rights carry substantive due process protection; caution against broad third-party visitation statutes)
In re K.I., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (third party bears burden to overcome presumption that custody with natural parent is in child’s best interest)
In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. 2002) (trial court must be convinced by clear and convincing evidence that placement with nonparent is a substantial and significant advantage)
In re Guardianship of J.K., 862 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (guardianship findings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Guardianship of L.L., 745 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (reversal where evidence showed mother was fit and guardianship unjustified)