Of v. G.C. (In re)
| Decision Date | 31 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-AD-371 |
| Citation | 113 N.E.3d 767 |
| Parties | IN RE: the ADOPTION OF L.G.K. J.K., Appellant-Respondent, v. G.C., Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Darlene R. Seymour, Ciyou & Dixon, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee: Meredith L. McIntyre, McIntyre & Smith, Bedford, Indiana
[1] G.C. ("Putative Father") filed a motion to set aside the adoption of the minor child L.G.K. ("Child") by J.K., her maternal grandfather ("Maternal Grandfather"). Maternal Grandfather appeals, raising one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court properly granted Putative Father's motion for relief from judgment. We conclude that because Maternal Grandfather presented an adoption petition to the trial court in which E.K. ("Mother") fraudulently claimed that she did not know the identity of Child's father, the trial court did not err in granting Putative Father's motion for relief from judgment and setting aside the adoption.
[2] We affirm.
Whether the trial court properly granted Putative Father's motion for relief from judgment.
[3] The facts in the light most favorable to Putative Father are that Mother and Putative Father dated and had an intimate relationship from December 2013 through October 2014. In December 2014, Mother told Putative Father that she was pregnant. Putative Father saw Mother one time during the pregnancy and did not provide support. Putative Father's parents ("Paternal Grandparents"), however, maintained contact with Mother throughout the pregnancy.
[4] Child was born on August 20, 2015. Putative Father was not present at the birth, but Paternal Grandparents visited Mother at the hospital shortly after Child was born, and Putative Father's mother informed him that Child had been born. Putative Father's name was not listed on Child's birth certificate, and Putative Father did not establish paternity or register with the Putative Father Registry. Putative Father testified that he and Mother took a DNA test using a product obtained from a drugstore, and that the test showed that he was Child's biological father. Mother disputes this.
[5] After Child was born, Mother and Putative Father lived together for approximately six months and acted as parents to Child. Both Putative Father and Paternal Grandparents established a relationship with Child. Child calls Putative Father "dad" and calls Paternal Grandparents "granny" and "poppy." Mother and Putative Father eventually separated, but Putative Father continued to visit regularly with Child. Mother and Putative Father jointly hosted a birthday party for Child when Child turned one year old. Maternal Grandfather attended the party.
[6] Mother led Putative Father to believe that he was the biological father of Child. At some point, Mother told Putative Father that she was going to the prosecutor's office to establish child support but did not do so. She requested child support from Putative Father of $400.00 per month, which Putative Father paid at times and Mother accepted. Mother threatened to take Putative Father to court and deny him visitation unless he paid her child support. Mother and Putative Father discussed going to the Indiana Department of Health to have Putative Father listed on Child's birth certificate; however, this was not done. At one point, Mother agreed to have Putative Father's name placed on Child's birth certificate, but she did not do so.
[7] On February 17, 2017, B.P., Mother's then fiancé, filed a petition to adopt Child. Putative Father was not provided with notice of the petition. On May 10, 2017, Maternal Grandfather filed a petition for adoption ("Second Adoption Petition"), and B.P. agreed to it. Putative Father was not provided with notice of the Second Adoption Petition. The Second Adoption Petition stated that the biological father was unknown and had not been disclosed by Mother to Maternal Grandfather or Maternal Grandfather's attorney. The Second Adoption Petition was granted, and the decree of adoption was issued on May 22, 2017.
[8] On June 19, 2017, under a separate cause number, Putative Father filed a petition to establish paternity and for orders relating to custody, visitation, and support. Putative Father continued to have contact with Child after the adoption decree was issued, though Putative Father did not learn of Child's adoption until Mother moved to dismiss his paternity action. Putative Father registered with the Putative Father Registry in August 2017.
[9] On August 4, 2017, Putative Father filed a motion to set aside the adoption, alleging that Mother and Maternal Grandfather defrauded him by "allowing him to have a regular visitation schedule with this child, by taking his regular child support payments, and allowing him to be this child's father, while behind the scenes, [Mother] was planning to have this child adopted by first her fianc[é], and then by her father." (App. Vol. 2 at 9). Maternal Grandfather filed a motion to dismiss Putative Father's motion. Putative Father responded and, additionally, moved for relief from judgment.1
[10] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on November 28, 2017. On January 25, 2018, the trial court granted Putative Father's motion to set aside the adoption.2 The court issued a written order, determining (among other things) that:
(App. Vol. 2 at 10). The trial court concluded (in relevant part) that:
The child's rights as well as [Putative Father's] rights are not well served by denying notice and a hearing to a father whose identity and location were known by the Petitioner. Further, by not setting aside this order, the child's right to an involved and loving parent is compromised.... [Putative Father] has demonstrated that he established a substantial relationship with the child and was not given the right to contest the adoption or proceed with his Paternity matter, and/or the Petitioner procured a fraud upon the Court by stating in his Petition that " ‘The biological father is unknown and has not been disclosed to the petitioner or petitioner's attorney by the Mother’ " when it was clear to the Court that the Petitioner knew that [Putative Father] had been acting as and was believed to be the child's Father, therefore invoking the Court to set the Adoption aside under Indiana Trial Rule 12(b)(6) [sic]. Further, that [Putative Father] was fraudulently induced, through material misrepresentations by [Mother], to not exercise his obligations or rights to take legal action to establish his rights legally. The Court further finds that [Putative Father] had standing to join in the Adoption because of the fraudulent actions of the Petitioner and to protect his due process rights allowing him to be equally protected as a parent and/or to proceed with his right [to] establish legally whether or not he is the Father. Further, he is furthering the rights of the child to determine whether she will be able to continue with their relationship and a relationship with her possible half-sister. [Putative Father] should have been notified of the filing of any Petition for Adoption of the minor child, [L.G.K.].
[11] The issue before us is whether the trial court properly granted Putative Father's motion for relief from judgment. Maternal Grandfather argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion for relief from judgment, and that the trial court should have upheld the adoption decree and dismissed Putative Father's paternity action. According to Putative Father, the trial court reached the correct result because Mother and Maternal Grandfather perpetrated fraud on the court by misrepresenting their knowledge of the existence of Putative Father as Child's biological father. In his reply brief, Maternal Grandfather maintains that "[Putative] Father cannot cry " ‘fraud’ ", as Mother is not to blame for [Putative Father's] own inaction in failing to register" with the Putative Father Registry. (Maternal Grandfather's Reply Br. 9).3
[12] The trial court's decision whether to set aside a judgment is given substantial deference on appeal, and we will reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion. In re Adoption of L.C.E. , 940 N.E.2d 1224, 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and inferences supporting the judgment for relief. Id. In reviewing the trial court's decision, we will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Id.
[13] Trial Rule 60 motions address the equitable grounds justifying relief from the legal finality of the final judgment. Blichert v. Brososky , 436 N.E.2d 1165, 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(3) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment based on fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. The decision of whether to grant or deny such a motion is left to the equitable discretion of the trial court. Stonger v. Sorrell , 776 N.E.2d 353, 358 (Ind. 2002) ; Levin v. Levin , 645 N.E.2d 601, 604 (Ind. 1994). We will not reverse a grant or denial of a motion for relief from judgment in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Stonger , 776 N.E.2d at 358 ; see also Beike v. Beike , 805 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The burden is on the movant to demonstrate that relief is both necessary and just. Levin , 645 N.E.2d at 604.
[14] When, as in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial