In Re: the Grandparent Visitation of G.S., J.S. v. M.S. , 69 N.E.3d 500 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                   FILED
    Jan 17 2017, 7:56 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    R. Lee Money                                               Larry F. Whitham
    Greenwood, Indiana                                         Whitham, Hebenstreit &
    Zubek, LLP
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    In Re: the Grandparent                                     January 17, 2017
    Visitation of G.S.,                                        Court of Appeals Case No.
    30A01-1608-DR-1801
    J.S.,
    Appeal from the Hancock Circuit
    Appellant-Respondent,                                      Court
    v.                                                 The Honorable R. Scott Sirk,
    Commissioner
    M.S.,                                                      The Honorable Richard D. Culver,
    Judge
    Appellee-Petitioner
    Trial Court Cause No.
    30C01-1202-DR-246
    Baker, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 30A01-1608-DR-1801 | January 17, 2017               Page 1 of 6
    [1]   J.S. (Mother) appeals the portion of the trial court’s order mandating that G.S.
    (Child) be permitted to have contact with other paternal relatives when
    participating in grandparent visitation with M.S. (Grandmother). Mother
    argues that there is no statutory authority for a trial court to order a child to
    have visitation with anyone other than a grandparent in the face of a parent’s
    objections. We agree, and reverse in part.
    Facts
    [2]   M.S. (Father) and Mother were married on October 19, 2002. Child, the only
    child born of the marriage, was born in November 2003. Throughout her life,
    Child had a close and loving relationship with Grandmother, her paternal aunt,
    M.L. (Aunt), and other paternal relatives. The parents divorced in March 2014.
    On May 2, 2015, Father committed suicide.
    [3]   Following Father’s death, Mother began to curtail the time that Child spent
    with her paternal relatives. Mother and Aunt have a particularly acrimonious
    relationship, and Mother did not wish for Child to spend time with Aunt any
    longer. Aunt and Grandmother live together, making visitation between Child
    and Grandmother increasingly complicated. For example, Mother required
    that visits occurred outside of Grandmother’s home, which was difficult for
    Grandmother, who is elderly and has medical concerns. On June 5, 2015,
    Grandmother filed a petition for grandparent visitation.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 30A01-1608-DR-1801 | January 17, 2017   Page 2 of 6
    [4]   In September 2015, Child and Mother moved to Tennessee because Mother
    received a job promotion necessitating the move. Following the move, Child’s
    contact with Grandmother and other paternal relatives decreased significantly.
    [5]   The evidentiary hearing on Grandmother’s petition took place on June 1 and
    June 29, 2016. On August 1, 2016, the trial court issued an order granting the
    petition. The trial court ordered that one visit per month, for at least six hours
    at a time, is to occur between Grandmother and Child, and that Grandmother
    is entitled to overnights during the summer months. In pertinent part, the trial
    court also ordered as follows:
    [A]ll visitation between Grandmother and Granddaughter may
    occur at Grandmother’s Residence or at such other location as
    Grandmother may select . . . .
    . . . [A]ll residents of Grandmother’s house need not leave
    Grandmother’s Residence during visits between Grandmother
    and Granddaughter, nor shall they be required to do so.
    Furthermore, other members of Father’s extended family may be
    present in Grandmother’s Residence or at such other locations
    where Grandmother may choose to exercise visitation. This
    shall mean that Granddaughter is entitled to be present and to
    participate in paternal family reunions and other paternal family
    functions, to the extent those are scheduled during
    Granddaughter’s periods of visitation with Grandmother.
    . . . Grandmother shall be entitled . . . [to] weekly telephone
    conversations with Granddaughter. . . . During those
    conversations, it shall be permissible for Grandmother to be
    joined in the conversation by other members of the extended
    paternal family. Mother shall not restrict Granddaughter from
    speaking openly and freely during periods of visitation or
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 30A01-1608-DR-1801 | January 17, 2017   Page 3 of 6
    telephone contact, nor shall Mother . . . restrict Granddaughter’s
    activities in reaction to Granddaughter’s maintenance of a loving
    relationship with Father’s family members.
    Appealed Order p. 11-12. Mother now appeals only the portions of the order
    mandating that Child be permitted to visit and have contact with her paternal
    relatives other than Grandmother.
    Discussion and Decision
    [6]   To resolve this appeal, we must turn to the text of the Grandparent Visitation
    Act (GVA). As with all cases involving statutory interpretation, we apply a de
    novo standard of review to the trial court’s order. E.g., In re Visitation of C.R.P.,
    
    909 N.E.2d 1026
    , 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The GVA was enacted in
    derogation of the common law; as such, it must be strictly construed. In re
    Guardianship of A.J.A., 
    991 N.E.2d 110
    , 113 (Ind. 2013).
    [7]   It is well established that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to
    raise their children. In re Visitation of L-A.D.W., 
    38 N.E.3d 993
    , 998 (Ind. 2015).
    Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has described it as “perhaps the oldest
    of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v.
    Granville, 
    530 U.S. 57
    , 65 (2000). While GVAs around the country are
    routinely enforced, it is likewise acknowledged that a parent’s
    right of upbringing would be a sham if it failed to encompass the
    right to be free of judicially compelled visitation by “any party”
    at “any time” a judge believed he “could make a ‘better’
    decision’” than the objecting parent had done. The strength of a
    parent’s interest in controlling a child’s associates is as obvious as
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 30A01-1608-DR-1801 | January 17, 2017      Page 4 of 6
    the influence of personal associations on the development of the
    child’s social and moral character.
    
    Id. at 78
    (Souter, J., concurring) (footnote omitted).
    [8]   In this case, it is undeniable that Grandmother is a “grandparent” for the
    purpose of the GVA, that she had standing to seek visitation with Child, and
    that the trial court acted within its authority in granting her petition to that
    extent. But it is likewise undeniable that Child’s other paternal relatives are not
    “grandparents.” The General Assembly has seen fit to carve out a narrow,
    limited exception to a parent’s right to raise her children for grandparents.
    There is no such exception for anyone else, including other relatives. Simply
    put, except for grandparents who qualify under the terms of the GVA, no other
    individuals can trump a parent’s right to determine who her child does, and
    does not, associate with. As such, the trial court erred by ordering that Mother
    permit Child to visit and maintain telephone contact with anyone other than
    Grandmother.
    [9]   In reaching this result, we intend to express no opinion about the character of
    Child’s paternal relatives, or even whether being permitted to maintain contact
    with them would be in her best interests. Indeed, we encourage Mother to
    reconsider her position; considering all that Child has lost in her short life, it
    seems wise to permit her to maintain contact with anyone and everyone who
    loves and supports her. But while we encourage her to do so, we—and the trial
    court—are without authority to order her to do so. As such, we reverse the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 30A01-1608-DR-1801 | January 17, 2017   Page 5 of 6
    portions of the trial court’s order relating to all individuals other than
    Grandmother.1
    [10]   The judgment of the trial court is reversed in part.
    Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
    1
    Although Grandmother spends much of her brief arguing that the trial court properly ordered that visits
    with Child may take place in Grandmother’s residence, in fact, Mother does not appeal that portion of the
    order. The trial court did not err by ordering that Child may visit with Grandmother in her home. Instead,
    the trial court erred by ordering Mother to consent to the presence of anyone else in the home (or wherever
    else the visits may take place) during the visits.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 30A01-1608-DR-1801 | January 17, 2017                       Page 6 of 6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case 30A01-1608-DR-1801

Citation Numbers: 69 N.E.3d 500

Judges: Baker, Mathias, Pyle

Filed Date: 1/17/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024