Worrell v. Elkhart County Office of Family and Children
Decision Date | 31 December 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 20S04-9810-JV-598,20S04-9810-JV-598 |
Citation | 704 N.E.2d 1027 |
Parties | Michael WORRELL and Jacintha Worrell, Appellants (Petitioners Below), v. ELKHART COUNTY OFFICE OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN, Appellee (Respondent Below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James L. McCaslin, Nancy A. McCaslin, Elkhart, for Appellants.
Beverly S. Peters, Elkhart, for Appellee.
Peter A. Kenny, Bloomington, for Amicus Curiae Indiana Foster Care and Adoption Association, Inc.
The sole issue in this case is whether Michael and Jacintha Worrell have standing to petition a trial court for visitation with their former foster children. We hold they do not.
In 1995, R.D., S.D., and B.D., brothers sharing the same natural mother, were placed in the Worrells' home as foster children. They remained in that home for seventeen months, until the Worrells discovered that twelve-year-old B.D. kissed and held hands with their twelve-year-old natural daughter. Jacintha Worrell reported the incident to the proper authorities, and they placed B.D. in another foster home that same day. The other two brothers remained with the Worrells for two months, at which time they were placed elsewhere so that all three brothers could be reunited.
The Worrells subsequently filed petitions for visitation with each of the three boys. After a hearing, the trial court held that the Worrells lacked standing to request visitation and dismissed the petitions.
The Worrells appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the Worrells did have standing because they "met their initial burden of establishing the threshold requisite of a custodial and parental relationship with their former foster children...." Worrell v. Elkhart County Office of Family and Children, 692 N.E.2d 929, 931 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). It remanded this case to the trial court for a hearing on the merits. We grant transfer and affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition.
The Court of Appeals has set out a two-part test for determining whether to grant visitation to a non-parent third party. 1 "To establish grounds for visitation, a third party must demonstrate the existence of a custodial and parental relationship and that visitation would be in the children's best interest." Francis v. Francis, 654 N.E.2d 4, 7 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). Under this regime, the first issue is standing and the second "is the standard by which the question of visitation is adjudged after the cognizable right is established...." Tinsley v. Plummer, 519 N.E.2d 752, 754 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). Before a court may proceed to the substance of a visitation request, the party seeking visitation must satisfy "the threshold requisite of [a] custodial and parental relationship." Id.
The Worrells argue that their foster relationship with the children constituted a custodial and parental relationship sufficient to confer standing to request visitation. While we agree that a foster parent acts by definition in a custodial capacity, we do not agree that the foster relationship justifies standing to petition for visitation.
When the Court of Appeals established the two-prong test for third party visitation in Collins v. Gilbreath, it expressly limited the breadth of its application. 403 N.E.2d 921, 923-24 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) () . That case involved a visitation request from a step-father who was married to the custodial natural mother of the children and who lived with the children prior to the death of the mother. Id. at 922. Accord, In re Custody of Banning, 541 N.E.2d 283 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) ( ).
Subsequent cases extended visitation to former step-parents following divorce. See, e.g., Caban v. Healey, 634 N.E.2d 540 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) ( ); cf. Francis, 654 N.E.2d 4 ( ).
In other cases, courts have declined to extend visitation rights to third parties who are not step-parents. See Wolgamott v. Lanham, 654 N.E.2d 890 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ( ); Tinsley, 519 N.E.2d at 752-55 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foust v. Montez-Torres
...a grandmother lacked standing because she was not in loco parentis where she did not live with child); Worrell v. Elkhart Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 704 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind.1998) (holding that foster-parent status was temporary and that foster parents lacked standing to petition for cu......
-
A.C. v. Newjersey
...Our Supreme Court substantially narrowed the scope of the right to seek third-party visitation in Worrell v. Elkhart Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 704 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind.1998). In Worrell, our Supreme Court addressed a petition for third-party visitation filed by former foster parents. I......
-
M.S. v. C.S.
...approval of a line of cases limiting standing to seek third-party visitation to former stepparents. Worrell v. Elkhart Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 704 N.E.2d 1027, 1029 (Ind.1998); see also In re Guardianship of J.E.M., 870 N.E.2d 517, 519 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). Because it is undisputed ......
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...court has authority to grant the same. In re I.E., 997 N.E.2d 358, 366 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (citing Worrell v. Elkhart Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 704 N.E.2d 1027, 1028 (Ind.1998) ), trans. denied (2014); see also Francis v. Francis, 654 N.E.2d 4, 7 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (dissolution court ......
-
Money, caregiving, and kinship: should paid caregivers be allowed to obtain de facto parental status?
...were denied standing to seek visitation after she was returned to her natural father.). (124.) 424 A.2d 178, 180 (N.H. 1980). (125.) 704 N.E.2d 1027, 1028-29 (Ind. 1998). The three foster children, who were brothers, were living with different foster parents because of an incident between o......