Robert Walker and Patricia Walker v. Megan (Buckner) Knight, Robert Walker and Patricia Walker v. Ashley Erin Carpenter
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINION ON REHEARING FILED Apr 12 2019, 9:01 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Robert E. Shive Paul R. Sadler Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana Charles P. Rice Murphy Rice, LLP South Bend, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Robert Walker and Patricia Walker, Appellants-Petitioners, v. Megan (Buckner) Knight, Appellee-Respondent ________________ Robert Walker and Patricia Walker, April 12, 2019 Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MI-1768 Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court The Honorable Steven R. Nation, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 29D01-1703-MI-2800 29D01-1703-MI-2801 Appellants-Petitioners, v. Ashley Erin Carpenter, Appellee-Respondent Baker, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-MI-1768 | April 12, 2019 Page 1 of 3 [1] Megan Knight and Ashley Carpenter (the Mothers) have filed this petition for rehearing, which we grant for the limited purpose of addressing one issue. 1 [2] As a preliminary matter, the Mothers raise the same arguments they previously raised both during summary judgment proceedings and on appeal. In essence, they contend that the law does not recognize Robert and Patricia Walker (the Walkers) as grandparents for purposes of the Grandparent Visitation Act (GVA) because they no longer fit the definition after the step-fathers adopted the children. Because we already addressed this argument in our original opinion, we decline to readdress it now. [3] The Mothers also seek clarification of our holding that the Walkers are entitled to proceed “on the merits.” We intended to give the trial court the opportunity to hear the merits of the Walkers’ petitions for grandparent visitation since the Walkers and the Mothers stipulated to this procedure in their agreement. In so ordering, we are not preventing the step-fathers from being heard. Rather, we are simply enforcing the agreement signed by the Mothers and the Walkers by specifying that the trial court should hear the Walkers’ argument on why they are entitled to grandparent visitation. This makes the Walkers “whole” by allowing them to make their case post-adoption, which is clearly what the 1 We also clarify that the step-fathers filed and the trial court granted their petitions for step-parent adoption before Braden’s death. This fact did not affect our decision. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-MI-1768 | April 12, 2019 Page 2 of 3 original agreement allows for them to do. Moreover, the trial court is in the best position to hear their case and to make a determination. [4] Our original decision stands, and in all other respects, we deny the Mothers’ petition for rehearing. May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-MI-1768 | April 12, 2019 Page 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
