In the Matter of the Guardianship of B.W. E.W. v. L.G.
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 708
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (E.W.) consented to a guardianship in 2010 placing her daughter B.W. with Grandmother due to Mother’s substance abuse; DCS dismissed CHINS after the guardianship was appointed.
- From 2010–May 2014 B.W. lived primarily with Great Aunt (L.G.), who served as a de facto custodian and formed a close bond with the child.
- Mother later achieved sobriety, completed CNA training, gained employment, had a second child (K.W.), and Grandmother petitioned to terminate the guardianship in July 2014 asserting Mother could care for B.W.
- Great Aunt filed a competing petition in June 2014 seeking guardianship/custody of B.W.; at the December 4, 2014 hearing the trial court terminated Grandmother’s guardianship and later awarded custody to Great Aunt.
- The trial court made findings about the long-standing bond between B.W. and Great Aunt, Mother’s past substance abuse, and Mother’s present employment and living situation; it concluded transferring custody would harm B.W.
- On appeal Mother challenged the award, arguing Great Aunt failed to rebut the strong legal presumption favoring placement with a natural parent by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Great Aunt rebutted the presumption favoring the natural parent by clear and convincing evidence | Mother (appellant) argued Great Aunt failed to show Mother is presently unfit or that placement with Great Aunt is a "substantial and significant" advantage | Great Aunt argued the long acquiescence to her care, her role as maternal figure, and B.W.’s strong bond justify awarding custody | Court held Great Aunt did not rebut the presumption; findings were inadequate to show clear and convincing evidence that placement with Great Aunt was substantially and significantly better than placement with Mother; reversed and remanded to vacate the custody order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.L., 745 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (discusses de facto custodian status and detailed findings required when parental rights are implicated)
- In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. 2002) (requires clear and convincing evidence that third-party placement is a substantial and significant advantage)
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review for custody modifications)
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (reversal required where ruling is based on error of law or unsupported by evidence)
- Smith v. Smith, 938 N.E.2d 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (discusses review of findings under Trial Rule 52)