Sanders v. Sanders, 1-483A111
| Decision Date | 30 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-483A111,1-483A111 |
| Citation | 452 N.E.2d 1057 |
| Parties | Marjorie SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Elizabeth SANDERS, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Dennis H. Stark, Kesler & Stark, Terre Haute, for petitioner-appellant.
Richard L. Rennick, Jr., Wallace, Campbell, Bunch, Shambach & Rennick, Covington, for respondent-appellee.
Petitioner-appellant, Marjorie Sanders, a paternal grandmother (Grandmother) appeals a decree granting her visitation with her grandchildren who are in the custody of her former daughter-in-law.
John Michael Sanders (Father) was formerly married to Elizabeth (Sanders) Anderson (Mother), and two children, John William Sanders and Angela Marjorie Sanders, aged approximately 9 and 5 respectively, were born to the union. Upon the dissolution of the marriage, Mother, by agreement, was granted custody of the children, and Father was granted reasonable visitation. At the time of the proceedings, Father was a member of the United States Army and was stationed in Korea. Mother had remarried, moved about 10 miles away, and there were some indications that the
new husband wanted to adopt the children. In any event, the relationship between Mother and Grandmother had cooled, and trouble had developed concerning grandparental visitation, which precipitated Grandmother's filing her petition for visitation. At trial she insisted upon visitation once a week, some overnights, holidays, and extended time in the summer. Mother had no objections, and testified that the grandparents should have visitation to maintain their relationship with the grandchildren. However, she disputed the extent of visitation demanded by Grandmother. The trial court entered the following decree:
ISSUES
I. Did the trial court commit reversible error in failing to set forth in its decree its findings and conclusions as required by I.C. 31-1-11.7-7;
II. Did the trial court err in making the paternal grandparents' visitation contingent upon the grandparents' son not being within the jurisdiction of the court;
III. Did the trial court's order for grandparents' visitation constitute an abuse of discretion in failing to grant grandparents reasonable visitation when such visitation would not interfere with the custodial rights of the mother.
Issue I.
Grandmother argues that Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52(A)(3) mandates special findings of fact without request "in any other case provided by these rules or by statute ". (Our emphasis)
Ind.Code 31-1-11.7-2 states that grandparents may seek visitation rights if the marriage of the child's parents is dissolved. Ind.Code 31-1-11.7-3 provides that "[v]isitation rights may be granted when the court determines that it is in the best interest of the child". (Our emphasis) The full text of Ind.Code 31-1-11.7-7 is as follows:
"Upon hearing evidence in support of and [in] opposition to the petition filed under this chapter, the court shall enter a decree setting forth its findings and conclusions." (Our emphasis)
We are of the opinion that the statutory language is sufficiently clear to require compliance by the trial court with T.R. 52(A)(3). However, the purpose of special findings of fact and conclusions of law is to provide the reviewing court with the legal basis upon which the decision was reached. Dean v. Dean, (1982) Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 1378. There is no mandate in T.R. 52 that the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitaker, In re
...(1973), 14 Ill.App.3d 602, 302 N.E.2d 199; Temple v. Temple (1977), 52 Ill.App.3d 851, 10 Ill.Dec. 706, 368 N.E.2d 192; Sanders v. Sanders (Ind.App.1983), 452 N.E.2d 1057; Browning v. Tarwater (1974), 215 Kan. 501, 524 P.2d 1135; Strong v. Trosclair (La.App.1982), 423 So.2d 13; Clary v. Cla......
-
E.M., Matter of
...T.R. 52(A) is to provide the reviewing court with the legal basis upon which the trial court made its decision. Sanders v. Sanders (1983), Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 1057, 1058. When the statement of the trial court's findings is insufficient, we may remand the issue to the trial court with instr......
-
Swartz v. Swartz
...grandson, Father, with no corresponding duties. The trial court abused its discretion in setting visitation. See Sanders v. Sanders, 452 N.E.2d 1057, 1059 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (not an abuse of discretion to award less visitation than requested by grandmother where grandmother's request would t......
-
Whiteco Industries, Inc. v. Nickolick
...have reviewed the merits in cases such as Teperich, supra; Hatcher v. Graddick (1987), Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 258; and Sanders v. Sanders (1983), Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 1057, without the trial courts having entered findings of fact and conclusions of law as required, the narrow basis upon which......