Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STEVEN KNECHT Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: GREGG S. THEOBALD Lafayette, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN RE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.N.M. JEANNEA MADSEN, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. DEBORAH JONES and JIMMIE JONES, Appellees-Co-Guardians. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 91A02-0705-CV-443

APPEAL FROM THE WHITE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Robert W. Thacker, Judge Cause No. 91C01-0308-GU-9

October 12, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

RILEY, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant-Petitioner, Jeannea Madsen (Madsen), appeals the trial court's denial of her petition to terminate Deborah and Jimmie Jones's (the Joneses) guardianship over her minor child, A.M. We affirm.
ISSUES

Madsen raises two issues, which we restate as: (1) (2) Whether the trial court's findings are supported by the evidence; and Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Madsen's petition to

terminate the guardianship.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We have previously considered an appeal of the trial court's first denial of Madsen's most recent petition to terminate the Joneses' guardianship over A.M. in an unpublished memorandum decision. See In re Guardianship of A.N.M., No. 91A02-0606-CV-483, slip op., 862 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (table). In that decision, we stated the relevant facts and procedural history as follows: A.M. was born in 1992 and is now fifteen years old. A.M.'s paternal grandparents, the Joneses, were appointed as temporary guardians of A.M. on August 12, 2003. They were appointed as A.M.'s permanent guardians on November 7, 2003, and A.M. has continued to live with them. However, Madsen has filed several petitions to modify or terminate the guardianship, all of which have been denied. On February 23, 2006, the Joneses submitted a report to the court, stating that, without their knowledge, A.M. had sold four Adderall tablets (her prescription medication) to students at her high school. As a result, she was expelled until January 2007, but the Joneses made sure that A.M. received 2

outbound schooling during this time. A.M. pled guilty in juvenile court to Class A felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, and she was put on formal supervision for six months with the Clinton County Juvenile Probation Department. Upon learning of this incident, on February 28, 2006, Madsen filed the most recent petition to terminate the Joneses' guardianship. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on May 31, 2006. The Joneses presented evidence that they had ensured A.M. was attending an alcohol/drug education class and counseling, as well as taking on-line classes and classes through outbound education. They expressed concern that if the guardianship were to be terminated, Madsen would not ensure that A.M. attended school or counseling or that A.M. finished her orthodontic work, for which they have paid. The Joneses also worried that Madsen's boyfriend would belittle and demean A.M., as he has done in the past. The Joneses presented evidence that Madsen failed to keep A.M.'s medications locked up while she was visiting, in violation of A.M.'s probation. Additionally, they presented an e-mail that Madsen wrote to Deborah Jones on May 25, 2005, offering to make a cash settlement in return for giving up custody of A.M. [] Madsen, on the other hand, testified that if A.M. were returned to her, she would ensure that A.M. attended school, received counseling, and maintained a relationship with the Joneses. Id., slip op. at 2-3. On appeal, we concluded that the trial court did not issue sufficiently detailed and specific findings, erroneously placed the burden of proof on Madsen, and remanded for further proceedings. Id., slip op. at 8. Upon remand, the trial court reviewed the record of proceedings and made extensive findings. The trial court concluded that the Joneses have a burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the "guardianship is necessary, and in the child's best interest, and that the guardianship should continue to be open." (Appellant's App. p. 33). Regarding the relationship between A.M. and the Joneses, the trial court concluded there is a strong personal and emotional bond between the child and the co-guardians, which has strengthened during the guardianship, and concluded that the grandparents were best suited to deal with

3

the extraordinary needs of A.M. due to her attention deficit disorder. Additionally, the trial court made numerous findings which demonstrate the strained relationship between A.M. and Madsen, and Madsen's lack of day-to-day involvement with A.M. over the past years. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that it is in the best interests of A.M. that the Joneses remain as her co-guardians and denied Madsen's petition. Madsen now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Madsen contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it most recently denied her petition to end guardianship. Specifically, Madsen argues that the trial court made findings that are not supported by the record. Further, Madsen argues that the bond between A.M. and the Joneses, A.M.'s paternal grandparents, is not unusual and should not be the reason to continue the guardianship. Finally, Madsen argues that the trial court erroneously considered whether the Joneses had overcome the presumption in favor of Madsen simultaneously with the best interests of A.M. I. Standard of Review In general, we review child custody determinations for an abuse of discretion, with a preference for granting latitude and deference to our trial courts in family law matters. Webb v. Webb, 868 N.E.2d 589, 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We will not reverse unless the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Additionally, Madsen is appealing from a decision in which the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52. Therefore, we must 4

first determine whether the evidence supports the findings and second, whether the findings in turn support the judgment. Webb, 868 N.E.2d at 592. The trial court's findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, that is, if the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them. A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We neither reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, but consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. II. The Trial Court's Findings Madsen asserts that certain findings by the trial court are not supported by evidence in the record. 1 We note that the Joneses have not responded to any of Madsen's contentions that certain findings by the trial court are unsupported. First, Madsen directs our attention to two related findings by the trial court: (1) that Madsen had little contact with A.M. after Madsen's divorce from A.M.'s father, and (2) that A.M. lived with the Joneses for extensive periods of time before the guardianship officially began. In searching the record, we have not found evidence which clearly support these findings. However, Madsen's own statement in the e-mail dated May 25, 2005, stated: "yes I know I wasn't there for you but you know what[,] you didn't care and never will[.] So[,] guess what[,] it goes both ways [because you were] fine without me [] then and you will be fine without us now[,] or however it turns out." (Appellant's App. p. 163). The date of this

Madsen has not identified her separate arguments by headings as required by Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(c), but rather has lumped all of her arguments together. The result of Madsen's briefing style has caused her assertions on this point to be found seven pages into her argument section beginning at the midpoint of a paragraph. We encourage counsel for Madsen to separate out arguments in accordance with the rules of Indiana Appellate Procedure.

1

5

e-mail, and the statement that is made, lend support to an inference that Madsen's lack of involvement with A.M. had begun prior to August 12, 2003, the date when the guardianship was initiated. Thus, we are not firmly convinced that a mistake has been made in finding the above facts; however, we will assume for sake of argument that these findings are not supported, and are therefore erroneous. Nevertheless, in reviewing the record, we note that other findings made by the trial court sufficiently support its judgment. "To the extent that the judgment is based on erroneous findings, those findings are superfluous and are not fatal to the judgment if the remaining valid findings and conclusions support the judgment." Huber v. Sering, 867 N.E.2d 698, 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The trial court found there was a strong bond between the Joneses and A.M., which had strengthened during the term of the guardianship wherein the Joneses had acted as the primary caregivers for A.M. for approximately three years. Here, we conclude that any error on the part of the trial court in finding limited contact between Madsen and A.M. after Madsen's divorce from A.M.'s father, and A.M. staying with the Joneses prior to the guardianship is not fatal to the trial court's judgment. Additionally, Madsen asserts some of the trial court's findings are not consistent with the comments made by the trial court at the hearing. Specifically, Madsen refers to the following findings: "that Madsen could not provide a suitable home; that only the Joneses could provide the attention needed by [A.M.]; and that [A.M.'s] future success and wellbeing would be seriously endangered by placement with Madsen," as being inconsistent with a specific dialogue from the trial court during a hearing on Madsen's petition. (Appellant's Br.

6

p. 15). 2 Regardless of whether the trial court has contradicted its previous statements during a hearing, our review of the trial court's findings is to determine whether the evidence supports those findings, not to determine whether the trial court has contradicted its own previous statements. See Webb, 868 N.E.2d at 592. Nonetheless, when reviewing the record, we find ample evidence to support these findings by the trial court. III. Termination of A.M.'s Guardianship The termination of guardianship statute provides specific instances upon which a guardianship should be terminated, and additionally requires a court to terminate a guardianship when "the guardianship is no longer necessary for any reason." Ind. Code

Download Guardianship of A.N.M., Jeannea Madsen v. Deborah and Jimmie Jones.pdf

Indiana Law