In the Matter of A.J.T. (Minor Child) M.T. (Father) v. J.R. (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 12 2016, 9:33 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Trenna S. Parker Ryan H. Cassman
Trenna S. Parker Law Office, Cathy M. Brownson
P.C. Coots, Henke & Wheeler, P.C.
Noblesville, Indiana Carmel, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In The Matter of A.J.T. (Minor October 12, 2016
Child) Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1604-AD-753
M.T. (Father),
Appeal from the Hamilton
Appellant-Respondent, Superior Court
v. The Honorable Steven R. Nation,
Judge
J.R., Trial Court Cause No.
29D01-1508-AD-1162
Appellee-Petitioner.
Bailey, Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1604-AD-753| October 12, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] M.T. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s interlocutory order denying his motion
for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dispensing with
Father’s consent to the adoption of A.J.T. (“Child”). We find a different issue
dispositive, and conclude this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide
this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Father and S.R. (“Mother”) were married and lived together in the State of
Oklahoma. Mother had a child from a prior relationship, A.L.T. Child was
born to Father and Mother in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on May 6, 2013.
[3] On September 5, 2013, Father was charged in the State of Oklahoma with
sexual abuse of a minor; the alleged victim was A.L.T.
[4] On April 2, 2014, the marriage between Father and Mother was dissolved in the
State of Oklahoma. Mother informed the Oklahoma court of her intent to
move out of state and to return to Indiana with Child. Father ultimately agreed
to Mother’s move with Child.
[5] In August 2014, Mother movied to Indiana with Child and A.L.T. Mother
married J.R. (“Stepfather”) on November 29, 2014.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1604-AD-753| October 12, 2016 Page 2 of 6
[6] Father entered a guilty plea on April 2, 2015, and was sentenced in Oklahoma
to thirty years imprisonment, with five years suspended to probation. From
that point forward, Father was incarcerated in Oklahoma prisons.
[7] On August 31, 2015, Stepfather filed a petition to adopt Child, which Father
sought to oppose. On November 18, 2015, Stepfather filed a motion seeking
the trial court’s determination that Father’s consent to the adoption was not
necessary as a result of Father’s sex offense against A.L.T. Father disputed that
contention, and, though he proceeded pro se for much of the litigation,
ultimately obtained counsel in December 2015.
[8] On January 20, 2016, Father, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the
adoption petition in which he claimed that the trial court lacked personal
jurisdiction over him.
[9] On March 15, 2016, the trial court entered its order granting Stepfather’s
motion to proceed without Father’s consent and denying Father’s motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
[10] This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[11] Father appeals the trial court’s order on his and Stepfather’s motions, and
challenges the order on its merits. In his Appellee’s Brief, Stepfather argues that
this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide Father’s appeal because the trial court’s
order was not a final judgment, is not a court order appealable as of right under
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1604-AD-753| October 12, 2016 Page 3 of 6
Appellate Rule 14(A), and Father did not properly perfect a discretionary
interlocutory appeal under Appellate Rule 14(B).
[12] This Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments in Indiana’s trial
courts. Ind. Appellate Rule 5(A). A final judgment is one that disposes of all
claims as to all parties. App. R. 2(H)(1). If a trial court’s order is not a final
judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide an appeal. In re
Adoption of S.J., 967 N.E.2d 1063, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Georgos v.
Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind. 2003)). Subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time by any party, and this Court may consider the matter sua
sponte. Id.
[13] Appellate Rule 14 provides for a limited number of exceptions to the final
judgment rule set forth above. Under Rule 14(A), this Court may exercise
subject matter jurisdiction over certain orders that would not otherwise qualify
as final judgments:
(1) For the payment of money;
(2) To compel the execution of any document;
(3) To compel the delivery or assignment of any securities,
evidence of debt, documents, or things in action;
(4) For the sale or delivery of the possession of real property;
(5) Granting or refusing to grant, dissolving, or refusing to
dissolve a preliminary injunction;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1604-AD-753| October 12, 2016 Page 4 of 6
(6) Appointing or refusing to appoint a receiver, or revoking or
refusing to revoke the appointment of a receiver;
(7) For a writ of habeas corpus not otherwise authorized to be
taken directly to the Supreme Court;
(8) Transferring or refusing to transfer a case under Trial Rule 75;
and
(9) Issued by an Administrative Agency that by statute is
expressly required to be appealed as a mandatory interlocutory
appeal.
App. R. 14(A).
[14] To conduct an appeal for any other interlocutory order, the appellant must seek
certification from the trial court of an interlocutory appeal, and this Court must
accept jurisdiction. App. R. 14(B). Failure to follow the procedure set forth in
Rule 14(B) is a bar to this Court hearing a party’s appeal. Wesley v. State, 696
N.E.2d 882, 882-3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Moreover, this Court has previously
decided that an order concluding that a parent’s consent to an adoption is
unnecessary is not a final judgment where a trial court did not certify that order
as an entry of judgment under Trial Rule 54(B).1 Adoption of S.J., 967 N.E.2d at
1066.
1
Trial Rule 54(B) provides in relevant part that where more than one claim for relief is presented, or when
multiple parties are involved in litigation, “the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or
more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1604-AD-753| October 12, 2016 Page 5 of 6
[15] In this case, the trial court’s order did not dispose entirely of the adoption
proceeding. Rather, it addressed only one party’s rights—those of Father—in
an order this Court has already concluded is not appealable as a final judgment
or as of right under Appellate Rule 14(A). Our review of the record and the
docket discloses that Father did not seek certification of the order for
discretionary interlocutory review under Appellate Rule 14(B), and the trial
court did not certify its order as a final judgment under Trial Rule 54(B). We
must therefore dismiss Father’s appeal. Accordingly, we do not reach the
merits of the issues Father presents concerning personal jurisdiction and the
necessity vel non of his consent to an adoption.
[16] Dismissed.
Riley, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Absent these “magic
words,”Adoption of S.J., 967 N.E.2d at 1066, an order is not final such that a party may take an appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1604-AD-753| October 12, 2016 Page 6 of 6