J.P. v. G.M., No. 38A02–1311–MI–960.
| Docket Nº | No. 38A02–1311–MI–960. |
| Citation | 14 N.E.3d 786 |
| Case Date | July 28, 2014 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
14 N.E.3d 786
J.P., Appellant–Respondent
v.
G.M. and R.M., Appellees–Petitioners.
No. 38A02–1311–MI–960.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
July 28, 2014.
Robert G. Forbes, Forcum & Forbes, LLP, Hartford City, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Chris M. Teagle, Muncie, IN, Attorney for Appellees.
OPINION
BROWN, Judge.
J.P. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's order granting the petition for visitation filed by G.M. (“Grandmother”) and R.M. (“Grandfather” and collectively “Grandparents”), the maternal grandparents of his daughter M.P. Father raises two issues which we revise and restate as:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance; and
II. Whether the trial court erred in its order granting Grandparents visitation.
We reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 2011, M.P. was born to Father and K.M. (“Mother”). Father and Mother were married after M.P. was born, and Mother died in December 2012. Since Mother's death, M.P. and Mother's other child, C., lived with Father.
On July 9, 2013, Grandparents filed a petition for visitation with M.P. Grandparents alleged that they asked on several different occasions to “get her, have been told we can have her and at the last minute for different reasons could not get her.” Appellant's Appendix at 7.
On July 29, 2013, Grandparents filed a request for a hearing, and the court scheduled a hearing for August 19, 2013. On August 13, 2013, an attorney filed an appearance on behalf of Grandparents and a motion for a continuance. The court granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing for August 20, 2013.
On August 20, 2013, the court held a hearing on Grandparents' petition for visitation and indicated at the start that it would also hear a case involving the guardianship of C. Father appeared without counsel, and when asked by the court whether he intended to be represented, Father stated: “I thought we were all just going to do it without an attorney so I didn't get one.” Transcript at 5. The following exchange then occurred:
THE COURT: Are you going to get one?
[Father]: Yes. I found out yesterday in the mail that they had him as an attorney.
THE COURT: Alright.
[Father]: When I got it in the mail.
THE COURT: So, are you asking for a continuance ...
[Father]: ... Continuance, yes.
THE COURT: [Grandparents' attorney,] what's your clients [sic] position on that?
[Grandparents' Attorney]: I mean I understand his request for counsel but they'd like to get these issues resolved as quickly as possible.
THE COURT: Okay.
[Grandparents' Attorney]: I don't know if he has—as far as the grandparent-grandparenting.
THE COURT: That's the one I'd like to address ...
[Grandparents' Attorney]: ... (Inaudible) with [M.P.]. I don't know if he has an objection to that. Him and I just discussed [C.] so I don't know.
THE COURT: Alright. As far as [the visitation action] is concerned, the petition for or the motion for continuance is denied. We're going to go forward on that hearing regarding grandparents [sic] visitation rights for the [Grandparents], with [M.P.]. On the matter of whether or not you should be removed as guardian, I'll come back and talk about that in a
few minutes. We might want to hear that later.
Id. at 5–6.
The court then asked Father if he objected to Grandparents' visitation with M.P., and Father stated that he did not in the beginning. The court asked Father if he knew of any good reason why the court should not grant Grandparents visitation, and Father stated: “Like I said I'd rather have a lawyer.” Id. at 6. The court told Father that he would have to proceed without a lawyer and that this was the day of the hearing. Father then said that the reason Grandparents should not have visitation is “[b]ecause of what my son has come up and told me has happened over at ... their place.” Id. at 7. The court then stated: “Okay. Well it [sic] objected to.” Id.
Grandmother testified. When asked by the court, Father stated that he did not have any questions for Grandmother. The court then questioned Grandmother, asked Father if he had any questions based upon the court's questioning, and Father said “No.” Id. at 13. Grandparents' attorney indicated that he did not have any additional evidence. The court asked Father if he wanted to present evidence or testimony, and Father stated: “I don't have no witnesses so I don't know.” Id. at 14. The court then asked Father if he wanted to testify, and Father stated: “Like I said, I don't know. I don't understand you know. I'm not ...” Id. Upon questioning by the court, Father indicated that he completed high school but did not understand “[t]his whole legal thing you know.” Id. Father stated: “I guess I could testify.” Id. Father then testified that Grandparents come late at night, that they want to be a part of the children's lives all of a sudden, and that he was just doing what he believed would think was right.
Near the end of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartley v. Reading, 67A04-1512-CC-2239
...present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request was denied." J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 790 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014) (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 850, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964), reh'g denied ). [¶29] "......
-
(Mansfield v. Reading, Court of Appeals Case No. 67A04-1512-CC-2239
...present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request was denied." J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 790 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 850, 11 L. Ed. 2d 921 (1964), reh'g denied ).[29] &quo......
-
Martiradonna v. Rynberk, No. 45A03–1411–DR–411.
...that Husband advances as well as others that he does not mention. One of Wife's cases illustrates this notion. In In J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 790 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), a grandparent visitation case, another panel of this Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying......
-
The Civil Commitment of B.N. v. Health & Hosp. Corp., 22S-MH-408
...good-cause determination for an abuse of discretion. See Campbell v. State, 161 N.E.3d 371, 375-76 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020); J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 789-90 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014). Discussion and Decision Indiana Administrative Rule 14 explains when and how trial courts may conduct remote proceed......
-
Hartley v. Reading, 67A04-1512-CC-2239
...present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request was denied." J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 790 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014) (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 850, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964), reh'g denied ). [¶29] "[A]mong th......
-
(Mansfield v. Reading, Court of Appeals Case No. 67A04-1512-CC-2239
...present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request was denied." J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 790 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 850, 11 L. Ed. 2d 921 (1964), reh'g denied ).[29] "[A]mong ......
-
Martiradonna v. Rynberk, No. 45A03–1411–DR–411.
...that Husband advances as well as others that he does not mention. One of Wife's cases illustrates this notion. In In J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 790 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), a grandparent visitation case, another panel of this Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying......
-
The Civil Commitment of B.N. v. Health & Hosp. Corp., 22S-MH-408
...good-cause determination for an abuse of discretion. See Campbell v. State, 161 N.E.3d 371, 375-76 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020); J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 789-90 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014). Discussion and Decision Indiana Administrative Rule 14 explains when and how trial courts may conduct remote proceed......