Lipginski v. Lipginski, No. 4-884A234

Docket NºNo. 4-884A234
Citation476 N.E.2d 924
Case DateApril 23, 1985
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 924

476 N.E.2d 924
Debra LIPGINSKI (now Hopkins) Appellant,
v.
Albert & Norma LIPGINSKI, Appellees.
No. 4-884A234.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
Fourth District.
April 23, 1985.

Page 925

Cecile A. Blau, Mary Ann Guenther, Fifer, Vogt & Lanum, Jeffersonville, for appellant.

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

On January 4, 1984, Albert and Norma Lipginski filed a petition to establish visitation rights of grandparents pursuant to IND.CODE 31-1-11.7-1 et seq. The petition was filed to establish visitation with minor children Angela Dee Hopkins and Jason Earl Hopkins. These children were in the custody of their natural mother Debra Hopkins, the former wife of petitioners' son, William L. Lipginski. Debra had remarried and her present husband, William J. Hopkins, had adopted the children on May 16, 1978 with consent of the natural father.

Debra Hopkins filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition which was denied. After a hearing on the merits, the trial court entered the following judgment on April 26, 1984:

"The Court now finds that it is in the best interest of the Children, Angela D. Hopkins and Jason Hopkins, that the grandparents' Petition for Visitation Rights should be and is now granted; further, that such grandparents shall have visitation as follows: the first weekend of each month beginning with the month of May, commencing at 10:00 a.m. Saturday through 6:00 p.m. Sunday and all other times mutually agreeable with both parties, with a review of this decision to be held in one year as to whether or not visitation should be continued expanded or terminated with the Court looking to evidence as to the effect of the grandparents' visitation, whether beneficial or detrimental to the children, as there was no expert testimony or evidence presented at the hearing in the instant that visitation would have a detrimental affect on the children, but only contradictory testimony from each of the parties as to their personal viewpoint."

Debra Hopkins filed a motion to correct errors which was denied as premature and this appeal followed. 1

The dispositive issues of this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the motion to correct errors filed by Debra Lipginski should be denied because it was premature?

Page 926

2. Whether the petitioners, Norma and Albert Lipginski are within the class of those who have the right to file a petition for grandparents' visitation rights under IND.CODE 31-1-11.7-1?

DECISION

Except as to interlocutory orders, appeals may only be taken from final judgments. James v. Board of Commissioners of Hendricks County (1979), 182 Ind.App. 697, 396 N.E.2d 429. Generally, a final judgment is one which disposes of all of the issues as to all the parties and puts an end to the matter in question. Thompson v. Thompson (1972), 259 Ind. 266, 286 N.E.2d 657.

In this case the trial court declared in its order that it "now finds ... that the grandparent's petition for visitation rights should be and is now granted." The trial court's order then sets forth the details of visitation, adding that a "review" of the decision is to be "held in one year as to whether or not visitation should be continued, expanded, or terminated...."

In their response to Debra Hopkins's Motion to Correct Errors, the Lipginskis argued the review provision precludes the court's order from being a final order and Debra's Motion to Correct Errors was filed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Bailey v. Menzie, No. 20A03-8806-CV-195
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 24, 1989
    ...Grandparent's Visitation Act, but following Amy's adoption the act no longer applied. See also Lipginski v. Lipginski (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 924. Similarly, our conclusions in the 1987 Menzie decision are not inconsistent with what we decide today. We held then that subsection (d) as ......
  • Bopp v. Lino, No. 24397
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • November 30, 1994
    ...legal relationship and rights as to a natural parent must likewise apply to the grandparent of an adopted child); Lipginski v. Lipginski, 476 N.E.2d 924 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (adoption removed condition precedent to grandparents' rights to seek visitation); see also Bond v. Yount, 47 Wash.App. ......
  • Bailey v. Menzie, No. 92A03-8607-CV-206
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 23, 1987
    ...no longer existed. In re Visitation of Menzie (1984), Ind.App., 469 Page 129 N.E.2d 1225, 1227; Lipginski v. Lipginski (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 924. We do not read from the legislature's silence an intent to frustrate the effect of or partially repeal the adoption statute, or to extend ......
  • Collard v. Enyeart, No. 48A05-9905-CV-198.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 5, 1999
    ...M.E.'s grandparents when they adopted him. Upon adoption, the adoptive parent is the actual parent of the child. Lipginski v. Lipginski, 476 N.E.2d 924, 927 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). Thus, when the Collards adopted M.E. they became his parents, and relinquished their status as his maternal grandpa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Bailey v. Menzie, No. 20A03-8806-CV-195
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 24, 1989
    ...Grandparent's Visitation Act, but following Amy's adoption the act no longer applied. See also Lipginski v. Lipginski (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 924. Similarly, our conclusions in the 1987 Menzie decision are not inconsistent with what we decide today. We held then that subsection (d) as ......
  • Bopp v. Lino, No. 24397
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • November 30, 1994
    ...legal relationship and rights as to a natural parent must likewise apply to the grandparent of an adopted child); Lipginski v. Lipginski, 476 N.E.2d 924 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (adoption removed condition precedent to grandparents' rights to seek visitation); see also Bond v. Yount, 47 Wash.App. ......
  • Bailey v. Menzie, No. 92A03-8607-CV-206
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 23, 1987
    ...no longer existed. In re Visitation of Menzie (1984), Ind.App., 469 Page 129 N.E.2d 1225, 1227; Lipginski v. Lipginski (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 924. We do not read from the legislature's silence an intent to frustrate the effect of or partially repeal the adoption statute, or to extend ......
  • Collard v. Enyeart, No. 48A05-9905-CV-198.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 5, 1999
    ...M.E.'s grandparents when they adopted him. Upon adoption, the adoptive parent is the actual parent of the child. Lipginski v. Lipginski, 476 N.E.2d 924, 927 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). Thus, when the Collards adopted M.E. they became his parents, and relinquished their status as his maternal grandpa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT