Risner v. Risner
| Decision Date | 04 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 30244,30244 |
| Citation | 189 N.E.2d 105,243 Ind. 581 |
| Parties | Harold RISNER and Louise Risner, Appellants, v. Randolph RISNER and Emma Risner, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles J. LaSata, South Bend, for appellants.
George F. Stevens, Stevens & Wampler, Plymouth, for appellees, George N. Beamer, Jr., Crumpacker, May, Levy & Searer, South Bend, of counsel.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the St. Joseph Superior Court No. 2. That order provided that the custody of Beverly Risner should be restored to her adoptive parents. The action below was upon a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus. It was alleged that appellant Louise Risner, the natural mother of the child, and her second husband, Harold Risner, brother of appellee Randolph Risner, were illegally depriving the appellees custody of their adoptive daughter, Beverly Risner.
Appellants had taken the child upon the authority of an order setting aside an adoption decree and judgment which had been issued by the Starke County Circuit Court some seven years earlier. The validity of that order must be decided by this court. If it was invalid, the result reached below was the proper one.
Beverly Risner was adopted by the appellees in 1955 in Starke County. She and her adoptive parents became domiciled in Florida in 1959. In 1962, her natural mother obtained an order setting aside the 1955 decree of adoption in the Starke County Court. The adoptive parents were informed of the 1962 action by registered mail. Service was also made by publication. The ground upon which the 1955 decree was set aside was that a fraud had been had upon the court. The alleged fraud involved two things. First, it was alleged that the natural mother's consent had not been freely given, but resulted rather from coercion. Further, it was alleged that the natural father's whereabouts were not unknown, as had been alleged in the petition, but were in fact, known to the parties throughout the entire proceedings.
Two questions are presented to be considered. The first concerns the finality of the judgment in the original adoption proceedings; second, the question of jurisdiction over out-of-state domiciliaries. With respect to the first, we concur in the case of In re Perry (1925), 83 Ind.App. 456, 148 N.E. 163, which held that the court's power over a decree of adoption is governed by the same rules of law as are all other judgments and decrees and is final. 1
Inasmuch as the decree of adoption was final, the question which must next be considered is one of the court's jurisdiction over the out-of-state domiciliaries in the 1962 proceedings. Insofar as there was no res over which the court could have had jurisdiction, the action was in personam in nature. Thus, to have had jurisdiction, the out-of-state parties must have voluntarily appeared in this proceedings or have consented to be sued, which they did not. Otherwise any attempt to bind such parties is totally void. The United States Supreme Court in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Hamilton
...plaintiffs included habeas corpus when the welfare officers removed the children from Mrs. Ellis' home, see, e.g., Risner v. Risner, 243 Ind. 581, 189 N.E.2d 105 (1963); mandamus when the judge refused to allow them to file their own adoption petition, see Ind.Code § 34-4-18-2; cf. State ex......
-
Miller v. Miller
...is made concerning the permanent care and custody of a minor child.' The recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Risner et al. v. Risner et al. (1963), 243 Ind. 581, 189 N.E.2d 105 holds that a judgment in adoption is final. Thus, the award of the minor child to the adopting parents is 'perman......
-
M.R. by Ratliff v. Meltzer
...is governed by the same rules of law which govern all other judgments and decrees. A decree of adoption is final. Risner v. Risner (1963), 243 Ind. 581, 189 N.E.2d 105, 106. In Risner, supra, 189 N.E.2d at 106, Judge Achor stated in footnote Finality of an adoption decree is necessary so th......
-
Adoption of T.B., Matter of, 45S03-9310-CV-1148
...to the child's life, and to allow laws of intestate succession to apply with certainty to adopted children. Risner v. Risner (1963), 243 Ind. 581, 582 n. 1, 189 N.E.2d 105, 106; Rhodes v. Shirley (1955), 234 Ind. 587, 596, 129 N.E.2d 60, 64. Although public policy abhors the idea of being a......