J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786

M.P. born Sept 2011 to Father (J.P.) and Mother (K.M.); Mother died Dec 2012; Father had custody of M.P. and another child C.
Maternal grandparents (G.M. and R.M.) petitioned for grandparent visitation on July 9, 2013; hearing requested July 29, 2013.
Grandparents’ counsel appeared and moved for a continuance the week of the originally scheduled hearing; the court rescheduled the hearing by one day.
At the Aug. 20 hearing Father appeared pro se, asked for a continuance to obtain counsel when he learned Grandparents had counsel, and was denied as to the visitation matter.
The court proceeded, heard limited testimony from Grandmother and Father, and entered an order granting substantial recurring visitation to Grandparents. Father later obtained counsel and moved to correct errors; the trial court denied relief.
The appellate court reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by denying Father’s continuance request and remanded for a new hearing.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Grandparents’ Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Father’s motion for a continuance	Father said he lacked notice that Grandparents retained counsel until the day before; he needed counsel at a crucial stage and was prejudiced	Grandparents said Father had six weeks to retain counsel and was permitted to present testimony, so no prejudice	Reversed: court abused its discretion; Father showed good cause and prejudice from denial; remanded for new hearing
Whether the trial court erred in granting grandparent visitation	Father argued the visitation order mischaracterized his objections and was entered after denial of continuance	Grandparents relied on the hearing and evidence presented and opposed delay	Not addressed on the merits — appellate court reversed on continuance issue only and remanded for new hearing

Litherland v. McDonnell, 796 N.E.2d 1237 (discretionary standard for continuance review)
Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (good-cause standard for continuance)
Hess v. Hess, 679 N.E.2d 158 (factors for continuance abuse-of-discretion review)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. Supreme Court; due process considerations for continuance denials)
Homehealth, Inc. v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 662 N.E.2d 195 (consideration of deprivation of counsel at crucial stages)
Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
In re M.L.B., 983 N.E.2d 583 (grandparent visitation should be occasional and not substantially infringe parental rights)
In re K.I., 903 N.E.2d 453 (clarifying limits of Grandparent Visitation Act)