IN RE ADOPTION OF TJF
Decision Date | 13 November 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02A05-0212-CV-616.,02A05-0212-CV-616. |
Citation | 798 N.E.2d 867 |
Parties | In the Matter of The ADOPTION OF T.J.F. Michael D. Hinrichs and Julie C. Hinrichs, Appellants-Petitioners, v. The Office Of Family And Children Of Allen County, A Division of The Allen County Department of Public Welfare, Appellee-Respondent. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Thomas C. Allen, Fort Wayne, In, Attorney for Appellant.
Dustin M. Roach, Suzan M. Rutz, Burt, Blee, Dixon, and Sutton, Fort Wayne, In, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appellants-Petitioners, Michael D. Hinrichs and Julie C. Hinrichs (collectively, "the Hinrichs"), appeal the trial court's order approving the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) and the Office of Family and Children of Allen County, a Division of the Allen County Department of Public Welfare's (OFC) Motion to Permit Biological Sibling Visitation.
We reverse and remand.
The Hinrichs raise two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:
On April 1, 1997, the Hinrichs filed a Petition for Adoption of T.F.1 On June 27, 1997, the trial court ordered visitation to be established between T.F. and her biological sister, L.W. However, the visitations did not take place. T.F. was two years old at the time of the trial court's order and L.W. was "struggling." (Brief p. 6). Catholic Charities, had wardship over L.W., and they did not follow through with the trial court's order for visitation between T.F. and her sister L.W.
On September 2, 1997, a Post-Adoption Visitation Agreement was filed in the same cause prior to the entry of the Decree of Adoption. The Post-Adoption Visitation Agreement allowed for visitation between T.F. and her biological sister, L.W. Additionally, the Post-Adoption Visitation Agreement placed the responsibility on the Hinrichs to schedule the visitations.
On December 19, 1997, the trial court entered a Decree of Adoption between the Hinrichs and T.F., now T.H. The Decree of Adoption does not mention the relationship between T.H. and L.W., who was not adopted by the Hinrichs. Additionally, the Decree of Adoption does not include an Order approving the post-adoption visitation agreement.
On August 12, 1998, an Amended Post-Adoption Visitation Agreement was filed in the same captioned cause. The Chronological Case Summary (CCS) does not reflect that the trial court entered an order approving the Amended Post-Adoption Visitation Agreement.
In 2001, Catholic Charities contacted the Hinrichs to begin visitation between T.H. and L.W.; however, the Hinrichs declined their request. On April 18, 2002, the OFC, and the Guardian Ad Litem filed a Motion to Permit Biological Sibling Visitation. On May 2, 2002, the Hinrichs filed a Motion to Dismiss the Guardian ad Litem and Office of Family & Children's Motion to permit Biological Sibling Visitation. On June 18, 2002, the trial court denied the Hinrichs' motion.
Thereafter, on July 3, 2002, the Hinrichs filed a Motion to Modify and/or Terminate Sibling Visitation. On July 23, 2002, a hearing was held on the GAL and OFC's Motion to Permit Biological Sibling Visitation and the Hinrichs' Motion to Modify and/or Terminate Sibling Visitation. At the hearing, the Hinrichs made an oral motion to Dismiss the GAL and OFC's Motion to Permit Biological Visitation. After receiving and hearing evidence, the trial court denied the Hinrichs' oral motion to Dismiss the GAL and OFC's Motion to Permit Biological Sibling Visitation.
On November 25, 2002, the trial court issued the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which state, in pertinent part:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FINDINGS OF FACT
3. [T.H.] is now seven (7) years old; [L.W.] is now thirteen (13) years old.
11. In [L.W.'s] Child in Need of Services case, the [GAL] for [L.W.], Susan [Suzan] Rutz, continued to act in her capacity as [GAL].
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Filter Specialists, Inc. v. Brooks
...(Sullivan, J., concurring in result) (indicating that recitations of witness testimony are not findings); In re Adoption of T.J.F., 798 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) ("A court or an administrative agency does not find something to be a fact by merely reciting that a witness testified to......
-
FR v. State (In re RR)
...proceedings in a matter are merged in, and disposed of, by the final decree.") (citing Hinrichs v. Office of Family & Children of Allen Cnty. , 798 N.E.2d 867, 872 (Ind. App. 2003) ). FR ,¶ 17, 488 P.3d at 947-48 ; see also ECH , ¶ 20, 423 P.3d at 301-02 (on appeal from permanency order, ad......
-
Garriott v. Peters
...(Sullivan, J., concurring in result) (indicating that recitations of witness testimony are not findings); In re Adoption of T.J.F., 798 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) court or an administrative agency does not find something to be a fact by merely reciting that a witness testified to X, ......
-
CP v. EMC III (In re Interest of FP)
...proceedings in a matter are merged in, and disposed of, by the final decree.") (citing Hinrichs v. Office of Family & Children of Allen Cnty. , 798 N.E.2d 867, 872 (Ind. App. 2003) ). [¶18] That leads us to the "Order to Dismiss Jurisdiction of the Court and Close File," which dismissed the......