In the Matter of the Adoption of E.D., K.R. v. A.D.S. and A.S. (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

Aug 12 2015, 9:44 am
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Patrick A. Duff Katharine Vanost Jones
Duff Law, LLC Evansville, Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Adoption of August 12, 2015
E.D., Court of Appeals Case No.
82A01-1412-AD-520
K.R.,
Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Appellants-Respondents, Superior Court
The Honorable Brett Niemeier,
v. Judge
Case No. 82D07-1309-AD-120
A.D.S. and A.S.,
Appellees-Petitioners
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] K.R. (“biological mother”) appeals the trial court’s denial of her Trial Rule
60(B) motion for relief from judgment. She argues that she was not served with
notice of the adoption proceedings regarding her son, E.D. Because the
evidence shows that biological mother was personally served with notice of the
proceedings, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Biological mother gave birth to E.D. in October 2012. E.D. was born with
drugs in his system and was hospitalized for ten days. As a result, the Indiana
Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging that E.D. was a
child in need of services (CHINS), and E.D. was removed from biological
mother’s care. In December, two-month-old E.D. was placed with A.D.S. and
A.S. (“adoptive parents”), his paternal aunt and uncle. E.D. has been in their
care since that time.
[3] Biological mother was ordered to participate in substance-abuse services, attend
Drug Court, refrain from using drugs, and submit to random drug screens. She
was unsuccessful: she failed to appear for eighteen drug screens in a four-month
period, tested positive for a combination of Oxycodone, Oxymorphone, and
methamphetamine nine times, and was discharged from Drug Court due to
noncompliance. In May 2013 biological mother sought inpatient drug
treatment, but she left the treatment facility before completing treatment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 2 of 8
Biological mother also failed to attend a number of CHINS proceedings, and
DCS filed a petition to terminate her parental rights.
[4] In September 2013—biological mother’s parental rights had not yet been
terminated—adoptive parents filed a petition to adopt E.D. and alleged that
biological mother’s consent was not necessary. E.D.’s biological father, C.D.
(“biological father”), consented to the adoption. The trial court held a hearing
on the adoption petition in December 2013. At the hearing, biological father
testified that he served biological mother with a “packet” of “three papers”
regarding the adoption proceedings:
I gave her the whole packet and then there was another paper that they
g[a]ve me that I was supposed to sign and say where she was at. Like
where I served her and the date. And then there was another paper
that said the exact same thing, but then at the bottom of it[,] it had a
place for her signature for her to sign and say that she knew about it.
Tr. p. 10. Biological father said that biological mother refused to sign the
papers and they fought about E.D. being adopted. Id. at 11. He also indicated
that biological mother planned to attend the adoption-petition hearing, but she
was not present. Id. The trial court continued the hearing to January 2014.
Biological mother did not appear at the January 2014 hearing either, and her
attorney indicated that he had not heard from her in some time.1 Over the
1
This attorney represented biological mother in the CHINS case and appeared on her behalf in the adoption
proceedings, though he was not in contact with biological mother at that time. A new attorney represented
biological mother in her request for Trial Rule 60(B) relief from judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 3 of 8
attorney’s objection, biological mother was defaulted. The trial court
concluded that biological mother’s consent to the adoption was not necessary
and granted the adoption petition. Id. at 17, 20.
[5] Biological mother later filed a motion from relief from judgment. In relevant
part, biological mother argued that she was not served with notice of the
adoption proceedings. At a hearing on her motion, biological mother testified
that she received only one paper from biological father and she tore it up,
thinking it was related to health care. Id. at 40. She also denied speaking to
biological father about E.D. being adopted. Id. Biological father testified again,
and stated that the three papers he gave to biological mother were copies of the
same document—a summons. Id. at 26. Contrary to biological mother’s
testimony, he again recalled fighting with biological mother about E.D. being
adopted. Id. at 31. Adoptive mother, meanwhile, testified that she watched her
attorney prepare “the packet” that biological father had delivered, and that it
contained a summons, notice to appear, and the adoption petition. Id. at 62,
64.
[6] The trial court ultimately rejected biological mother’s lack-of-notice claim,
explaining that she had repeatedly failed to appear when previously summoned
to court and biological father had personally served her with notice of the
adoption proceedings:
In the [CHINS proceedings], [biological mother] failed to appear
[three times]. During the [CHINS proceedings], the Court issued writs
on her first two failure[-]to[-]appears. The Court also found her in
contempt and sentenced her to jail for not complying with the Court’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 4 of 8
orders. [Biological mother] failed to appear in this cause as she was
afraid she would be arrested as she had been previously. [Biological
mother’s attorney] attempted to get her to appear, but she refused.
Even though [biological mother] did not read the documents given to
her by [biological father], she was properly served and had notice of
the hearing.
[Biological mother] was served with a notice, the [adoption] petition,
and summons to appear. While months after the fact [biological
father] misidentified the documents that he personal[ly] served on
[biological mother], the evidence presented by [biological father]
substantiates that “the packet” he gave her contained these documents.
[Adoptive parents’ attorney] is an experienced, highly reputable
attorney who would not give the wrong paperwork to be served.
[Biological father] originally testified only five days after giving
[biological mother] the documents that he gave her “the packet.” A
duplicate packet [that adoptive parents’ attorney] filed with the court
contained the [adoption] petition, notice, and summons.
* * * * *
The notice to appear stated that [biological mother] should appear on
December 10th, but [she] failed to appear. The Court reset the default
hearing to January 8, 2014 . . . .[Biological mother] again failed to
appear.
Appellant’s App. p. 71. The court denied the motion for relief from judgment.
Biological mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Biological mother appeals the trial court’s denial of her Trial Rule 60(B) motion
for relief from judgment. “The decision of whether to grant or deny
a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment is within the sound,
equitable discretion of the trial court.” Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353, 358
(Ind. 2002) (citation omitted). We will only reverse where the trial court has
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 5 of 8
abused its discretion. Id. (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs if
the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before the court or the reasonable inferences therefrom. Shane v.
Home Depot USA, Inc., 869 N.E.2d 1232, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[8] The sole question before us is whether biological mother was served with notice
of the adoption proceedings.2 “[A] judgment entered where there has been
no service of process is void for want of personal jurisdiction.” In re Adoption of
L.D., 938 N.E.2d 666, 669 (Ind. 2010) (citation omitted). If, as she claims,
biological mother did not receive notice, her Trial Rule 60(B) motion should
have been granted because the adoption was void. Id.[9] Indiana Trial Rule 4.1 provides the following for service of process:
(A) In General. Service may be made upon an individual, or an
individual acting in a representative capacity, by:
(1) sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or
certified mail or other public means by which a written
acknowledgment of receipt may be requested and obtained to his
residence, place of business or employment with return receipt
requested and returned showing receipt of the letter; or
(2) delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally; or
(3) leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at his dwelling
house or usual place of abode; or
(4) serving his agent as provided by rule, statute or valid agreement.
2
The adoptive parents argue that biological mother must show a meritorious defense in order to prevail on
appeal, but we confine our analysis, as the trial court did, to the issue of notice. Likewise, we do not address
biological mother’s arguments regarding the propriety of serving adoption documents on one of her
attorneys; we need only consider the issue of biological father’s personal service on biological mother.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 6 of 8
(Emphasis added).
[10] The evidence shows that biological father personally served biological mother
with notice of the adoption proceedings.3 The record shows, as the trial court
found, that biological mother routinely failed to appear for hearings regarding
E.D., despite having adequate notice. And at a hearing on the adoption
petition, biological father testified that he personally served mother with “the
packet” of “three papers,” which was later shown to be a notice, the adoption
petition, and a summons to appear. Although biological father later
misidentified these documents, the trial court examined a copy of “the packet”
and determined that it contained the required documents:
While months after the fact [biological father] misidentified the
documents that he personal[ly] served on [biological mother], the
evidence presented by [biological father] substantiates that “the
packet” he gave her contained these documents. [Adoptive parents’
attorney] is an experienced, highly reputable attorney who would not
give the wrong paperwork to be served. [Biological father] originally
testified only five days after giving [biological mother] the documents
that he gave her “the packet.” A duplicate packet [that adoptive
parents’ attorney] filed with the court contained the [adoption]
petition, notice, and summons.
Appellant’s App. p. 71.
3
While the evidence is clear in this case that biological mother received notice of the adoption proceedings,
having a party with adverse interests serve another party may be problematic in other cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 7 of 8
[11] Biological mother argues that biological father’s testimony supports her claim
that she was not served with the required documents. See Appellant’s Br. p. 13-
14. Somewhat confusingly, she also asserts that she and biological father were
under the influence of drugs when he served her with the adoption paperwork.
Id. at 14-15. To this end, biological mother invites us to assess the credibility of
witnesses and reweigh the evidence before the trial court, which we will not do.
We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that biological mother was personally
served with notice of the adoption proceedings; and, as a result, we affirm the
court’s denial of her Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment.
[12] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1412-AD-520 | August 12, 2015 Page 8 of 8