Wilson v. Cloum
Decision Date | 14 October 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 80A05-0302-CV-57.,80A05-0302-CV-57. |
Citation | 797 N.E.2d 288 |
Parties | Edward WILSON and Deborah Wilson, Appellants-Respondents, v. Sharon CLOUM, Appellee-Petitioner. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Karen A. Wyle, Bloomington, IN, Attorney for Appellants.
Mark A. Ryan, Kokomo, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Appellants-respondents Edward and Deborah Wilson (respectively, "Father" and "Mother"; collectively, "Parents") appeal the trial court's grant of the petition for visitation of appellee-petitioner Sharon Cloum ("Grandmother"). We affirm in part and vacate in part.
Parents raise three issues for review, which we consolidate and restate as the following two:
I. whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting Grandmother's petition; and
II. whether the trial court abused its discretion in crafting its visitation order.
On April 21, 2000, M.C. was born to Jeffrey and Michelle Cloum. Jeffrey is Grandmother's son, and Michelle was Parents' daughter. From April to July 2000, Grandmother saw M.C. approximately twenty to thirty times. In July 2000, following a dispute regarding discipline, Jeffrey's daughter (and M.C.'s half-sister) K.C. went to live with Grandmother. Thereafter, Jeffrey and Michelle denied Grandmother access to M.C.
On January 11, 2001, Jeffrey killed Michelle. On January 18, 2001, the Tipton Circuit Court appointed Parents as M.C.'s temporary guardians. Around the time of Michelle's funeral, Grandmother telephoned Father and asked if she could look after M.C. while Parents cleaned out Jeffrey and Michelle's house. Father replied, "no, not with this thing with Jeff that's going on." Tr. at 17. Jeffrey subsequently pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter.
On February 1, 2002, Grandmother petitioned for visitation with M.C. On August 30, 2002, the Tipton Circuit Court terminated Jeffrey's parental rights to M.C. and granted Parents' petition to adopt M.C. On January 23, 2003, the Circuit Court granted Grandmother's petition in an order reading in relevant part as follows:
6. That [Grandmother] was advised by [Father] not to contact [Parents].
(a) For a period of three (3) consecutive weeks, [Grandmother] shall visit with [M.C.] in the home of [Parents] for a period of two (2) hours two (2) times a week. The six (6) visitations over the three (3) week period will be scheduled between the parties.
(b) For a period of eight (8) weeks, [Grandmother] shall visit with [M.C.] for two (2) hours per week outside of the home of [Parents].
(c) Thereafter, and until further order of the Court, [Grandmother] shall have visitation from 5:00 P.M. on Friday until 5:00 P.M. on Sunday on the third weekend of each month. Said visitation shall begin on March 29, 2003 and each third weekend thereafter.
(d) The Court further awards [Grandmother] visitations for the holidays and summer visitation and request that the parties endeavor to schedule the aforesaid times for holiday and summer visitation between themselves. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court will order visitation.
3. That [Grandmother's] visitation is conditioned upon the following requirements:
(a) [Grandmother] shall take part in any counseling for [M.C.] requested by the counselor for [M.C.] [Parents] shall keep the counselor aware of the status of [Grandmother] in regards to counseling.
(b) Each party is ordered not to make any derogatory comments regarding the other party in the presence of [M.C.]
(c) [Grandmother] shall not discuss the events of the death of Michelle Cloum unless at the request of or questioning by [M.C.]
4. The Court further orders that [Grandmother] shall be the primary caregiver or babysitter for [M.C.] after expiration of eight (8) weeks.
Appellant's Br. at 27-30. Parents now appeal.
Parents contend that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Grandmother's petition for visitation with M.C.
Swartz v. Swartz, 720 N.E.2d 1219, 1221-22 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quotation marks and some citations omitted).
Parents contend that the trial court failed to adhere to constitutionally required standards in evaluating Grandmother's petition. Specifically, they contend that the trial court failed to presume that their decision regarding visitation was in M.C.'s best interests and that it failed to give their decision special weight. To support this contention, Parents rely on Crafton v. Gibson, 752 N.E.2d 78 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001). In Crafton, a panel of this court concluded that a trial court must "presume[ ] that a [parent's] decision was in her children's best interest" and that a trial court must give "special weight" to a parent's decision regarding visitation. Id. at 98, 99. In so concluding, the Crafton court relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).
Parents' contention on this point is simply an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Huffman v. Huffman, 623 N.E.2d 445, 449-50 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (citations omitted), trans. denied (1994).2 Parents also challenge several of the trial court's findings but do not challenge its ultimate finding that it would be in M.C.'s best interests to have visitation with Grandmother. See Ind.Code § 31-17-5-2(a) (). In sum, Parents have not established that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Grandmother's petition for visitation with M.C.
Parents contend that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Grandmother to discuss the circumstances of Michelle's death with M.C. and in ordering them to use Grandmother as M.C.'s primary babysitter. As for the first contention, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramsey v. Ramsey
...determine whether the trial court complied with the more specific requirements of McCune." (emphasis added)); cf. Wilson v. Cloum, 797 N.E.2d 288, 291 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied (declining to reverse even though trial court did not specifically address the four McCune factors par......
-
R.W. v. M.D. (In re Visitation of L-A.D.W.)
...found that visitation of ninety-six days per year was excessive. Hoeing, 880 N.E.2d at 1222.Grandparents direct us to Wilson v. Cloum, 797 N.E.2d 288 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), reh'g denied, trans. denied, where we upheld a trial court's grant of grandparent visitation, which was phased down to one......