M.L. v. B.M. (mem.dec.)
41A04-1612-GU-2700
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Child born in 2001; parents divorced when Child was ~8. Father had custody; Mother had intermittent parenting time and never paid support.
- Father committed suicide in February 2013; Grandparents (paternal grandmother and step-grandfather) obtained guardianship with Mother’s consent because Mother lacked health and financial stability; guardianship entered April 1, 2013.
- Mother later married M.S., who had a prior criminal record and diagnosed mental-health issues; Grandparents restricted overnight visits and required information about M.S., which Mother and M.S. refused to provide.
- Mother’s contact with Child dwindled after her marriage; by 2016 Child (then 15) had a strong bond with Grandparents and expressed a desire to remain with them.
- Mother filed a petition (June 2016) to terminate the guardianship; after a hearing and in-camera interview of Child, the trial court denied termination but ordered parenting time for Mother under the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying termination of guardianship | Mother: She is now stable (health, residence, marriage) and the guardianship should be terminated | Grandparents: Child has a strong emotional bond with them; continued placement is in Child’s best interests and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence | Court: No abuse of discretion; Grandparents met clear-and-convincing burden that Child’s best interests were substantially and significantly served by remaining with them |
| Whether the trial court’s in-camera interview of the 15-year-old was improper | Mother: Interview made the court partial; fundamental error | Grandparents: Court may consider child’s wishes; statute allows consideration of child’s preferences for age 14+ | Court: Interview was proper and statutorily authorized; child’s wishes are a valid factor |
| Whether Grandparents’ restrictions caused alienation (and thus the court erred) | Mother: Grandparents alienated Child by limiting parenting time after she married M.S. | Grandparents: Mother and M.S. refused to provide information and declined opportunities to be with Child in the Grandparents’ home; Mother bears responsibility | Court: Record does not compel finding of alienation; Mother bore significant responsibility for the weak relationship |
| Burden of proof allocation (parent minimal burden vs. guardian clear-and-convincing) | Mother: Met minimal burden and termination should follow | Grandparents: Once parent meets minimal burden, guardian must show by clear-and-convincing evidence that placement with guardian substantially benefits the child | Court: Acknowledged burdens; concluded Grandparents satisfied their clear-and-convincing burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys)
- In re Guardianship of M.N.S., 23 N.E.3d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review and deference in guardianship/custody decisions)
- In re Guardianship of B.W., 45 N.E.3d 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (strong presumption favoring natural parent in custody disputes)
- In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. 2002) (guardian must prove by clear and convincing evidence that placement with third party substantially and significantly benefits the child)