Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal in an adoption case, finding no appellate jurisdiction over the issue of temporary custody.
The case involves child S.L., who was removed from his biological parents when he was 12 days old and was placed with adoptive parents M.H. and A.H. Two years later, grandparents D.P. and T.N. were granted guardianship of the child.
S.L. lived with his grandparents but spent weekends, holidays and vacations with M.H. and A.H. In May 2019, he was placed full-time with the adoptive parents.
M.H. and A.H. moved to adopt S.L. in 2020. Also, they separately moved for temporary custody and to consolidate the adoption and temporary custody cases with the Hamilton Superior Court.
The child’s father, P.L., was not served the petition or motions. While he was entitled to notice of the adoption petition, the law doesn’t require notice of temporary custody actions.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion for temporary custody with only the adoptive parents and grandparents in attendance. The court then granted the temporary custody motion.
More than a year later, father P.L. filed a Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside the trial court’s order of custody, arguing the order was void for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of notice.
The trial court denied the father’s motion, finding the temporary custody order was not void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court explained that Indiana Code § 31-19-2-13 authorizes an ex parte proceeding in temporary custody matters.
The father then appealed and the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed, finding the trial court erred in denying the Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside the temporary custody order. It also found in its unpublished decision that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because the adoptive parents failed to serve the father with notice.
The adoptive parents challenged the Court of Appeals’ decision, and the high court agreed that the appellate court erred in requiring notice. However, the court dismissed the appeal on the narrower ground of lack of appellate jurisdiction over the custody issue.
Specifically, the justices concluded the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside the temporary custody order was not a final appealable order.
While the cases had been consolidated, the Supreme Court noted there were still two separate issues: temporary custody and the adoption petition.
“On July 8, 2020, the Hamilton Superior Court issued one order addressing Father’s preliminary motion to set aside temporary custody, finding it in Child’s best interest to grant temporary custody pending the adoption under Indiana Code section 31- 19-2-13,” Justice Mark Massa wrote. “Because the petition for adoption was still pending at the time the trial court issued this preliminary order — thus not disposing of all the claims — the trial court’s July 8 order was not a final judgment.”
The high court also noted the trial court’s order lacked a “key phrase.”
“Trial Rule 54(B) requires a court’s order to ‘expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay, and in writing expressly direct[] entry of judgment,’” Massa wrote. “… Yet the trial court’s order did not use the key phrase and state that there was ‘no just reason for delay’ or direct entry of judgment. … Instead, the Hamilton Superior Court entered an interim order, which lacked the key phrasing or an express directive for entry of judgment and granted temporary custody to Adoptive Parents until further action by the court.”
All justices concurred in In The Matter of the Adoption of S.L.; P.L. v. M.H. and A.H., 23S-AD-00158.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.