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: JOHN T. WILSON Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JANE G. COTTON Anderson, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
) ) ) VIRGINIA WATSON and HOWARD WATSON, ) ) Appellants-Respondents, ) ) vs. ) ) DONALD MIER and ROSE MIER, ) ) Appellees-Guardians. ) IN RE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF: C.M., N.W.M., and T.W.

No. 48A02-0701-CV-67

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge Cause No. 48D03-0607-GU-78

October 23, 2007

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary In this interlocutory appeal, Virginia ("Mother") and Howard Watson ("Stepfather") (collectively, "the Parents") challenge the trial court's jurisdiction over the guardianship action concerning C.M., N.W.M., and T.W (collectively, "the Children"). We reverse. Facts and Procedural History C.M. and N.W.M. were born to Mother and Thomas Mitchell; T.W. was born to Mother and Stepfather.1 The Children had been living in Florida with the Parents since 2001. Mitchell lived in Indiana. In May 2006, Mitchell passed away, and the Children came to Indiana from Florida to visit for several weeks with their maternal grandparents, Donald and Rose Mier ("the Grandparents"). On July 26, 2006, the Grandparents obtained a temporary guardianship of the Children based on C.M.'s allegations that Stepfather had molested her. 2 App. at 6-7. On September 6, 2006, the Grandparents filed a motion for expedited permanent guardianship and a motion to maintain jurisdiction in Indiana. Id. at 8-12. On November 6, 2006, the Parents filed their "Motion to Dismiss Guardianship and Order for Return of Children to Parents," and the court held a hearing on the matter. Id. at 18-21. The next day, the court interviewed the Children. 3 On November 9, 2006, the court issued an order, which

Another child, Ch.W., was born to Mother and Stepfather. However, Ch.W. remains in Florida, along with Ca.W., Stepfather's child from a prior marriage. Neither Ch.W. nor Ca.W. is a subject in the present case. Apparently, police in Indiana looked into the allegation and forwarded their report to the appropriate authorities in Florida. In response, the State of Florida declined to prosecute Stepfather on charges of sexual battery, and the Florida Department of Children and Families filed a Notice of Intent Not to File a Petition for Dependency. App. at 22-24.
3 2

1

Without a transcript, we have no idea what the court and the Children discussed.

2

reads, in its entirety, as follows: "After interviewing [the Children] and taking matter under advisement, Court finds it has jurisdiction over [the Children]. Court has yet to discuss with Florida Judge regarding jurisdiction of [Ch.W. and Ca.W.]. Id. at 25. Discussion and Decision The Parents contend that the court erred in deciding to maintain jurisdiction because Florida is the home state of the Children under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law ("UCCJL"). 4 In addition, they assert that no evidence exists that the Children were abandoned or that Florida declined jurisdiction. Under the UCCJL, the trial court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction and, if it does, whether to exercise that jurisdiction. Pryor v. Pryor, 709 N.E.2d 374, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). In determining whether a trial court has improperly exercised jurisdiction under the UCCJL, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Id. An abuse of discretion will occur when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. The UCCJL was adopted to: (1) avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being;

See Ind. Code

Download In Re The Guardianship of C.M., N.W.M., T.W.; Virginia Watson and Howard Watson

Indiana Law