In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children: J.T.D. and J.S.: Ind. Dept. of Child Services v. N.E.
21 N.E.3d 824
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Lake Superior Court in Lake County has four divisions: civil (including probate), criminal, county, and juvenile.
- N.E. filed two adoptions in the Civil Division, conflicting with Lake County’s Caseload Allocation Plan that adoptions are exclusively filed in the Juvenile Division.
- DCS moved to intervene and transfer to Juvenile Division; trial court denied transfer; Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- Court held the Lake County divisions are not jurisdictional divisions but venue divisions; the Caseload Allocation Plan governs venue, not jurisdiction.
- Statutory framework does not grant exclusive probate/adoption jurisdiction to the Civil Division in Lake County, and local rules may constrain venue but not create jurisdictional rights.
- Caseload Allocation Plan, in effect at the time, required petitions for minors’ adoptions to be filed in Juvenile Division; the plan binds courts and litigants as a rule of court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lake County has a separate probate court with exclusive adoption jurisdiction. | N.E. relies on I.C. § 31-19-1-2(b) to confer exclusive probate jurisdiction. | DCS argues statute applies only where there is a separate probate court; Lake County has none. | No separate probate court; exclusive adoption jurisdiction not limited to Civil Division. |
| Whether the four divisions are jurisdictional or merely venues for a single court. | Divisions reflect jurisdictional boundaries; adoptions must be in Juvenile Division. | Divisions are descriptive of venue; Court as a whole has broad jurisdiction. | Divisions are venue, not jurisdictional boundaries; one Lake County Superior Court with shared jurisdiction. |
| Whether the Caseload Allocation Plan conflicts with statute and mandates transfer to Juvenile Division. | Legislature controls; local plan cannot override statutory structure. | Plan is binding and requires transfer to Juvenile Division. | Caseload Allocation Plan binds the court and requires transfer to Juvenile Division. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying transfer based on Caseload Allocation Plan. | Petitions were properly in Juvenile Division per plan; denial ignores mandate. | Trial court had jurisdiction over adoptions and could retain venue. | Reversed; trial court must transfer to Juvenile Division consistent with the Plan. |
| What is the controlling interpretation of T.B. regarding Juvenile Division probate jurisdiction? | T.B. supports lack of Juvenile probate jurisdiction to preclude transfer. | T.B. dicta; not controlling on Lake County divisions. | T.B. dicta; holding here that divisions share jurisdiction and plan governs venue. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of T.B., 622 N.E.2d 921 (Ind. 1993) (juvenile CHINS preclusion not controlling; probate-jurisdiction analysis discussed)
- Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 970 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2012) (local rules binding when consistent with statutes)
- Pera (State ex rel. Commons) v. Commons, 987 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. 2013) (local court rules have effect of law; cannot conflict with statutory provisions)
- Magnuson v. Billings, 152 Ind. 177 (Ind. 1899) (rule of court as law of procedure binding on court and litigants)
- Georgetown Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Keele, 743 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (subject matter jurisdiction created by statute or constitution)
- Chicago SouthShore and South Bend R.R. v. North Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., 685 N.E.2d 680 (Ind. 1997) (distinguishes venue from jurisdiction; best evidence of legislative intent is text)