P.L. v. A.H.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Indiana?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Indiana. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from a decision of the court of appeals requiring Adoptive Parents to provide notice to biological Father of the temporary custody of Child, rending the trial court's temporary custody order void for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction.
After Child was placed full-time with Adoptive Parents, Adoptive Parents petitioned to adopt child and separately moved for temporary custody. Father was not served the petition or motions. After a hearing, the superior court granted Adoptive Parents temporary custody, determining that it was in Child's best interests while the adoption petition was pending. Father later filed a motion to set aside the order of custody on the grounds that he was not given notice. The trial court denied the motion. Adoptive Parents appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the superior court's order granting temporary custody was not a final judgment because it neither disposed of all claims for all parties nor stated that there was no just reason for delay.
Download PDF
FILED Jun 20 2023, 2:18 pm CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court IN THE Indiana Supreme Court Supreme Court Case No. 23S-AD-00158 In the Matter of the Adoption of S.L.; P.L., Appellant (Respondent below) –v– M.H. and A.H., Appellees (Petitioners below). Argued: April 27, 2023 | Decided: June 20, 2023 Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court No. 29D01-2006-AD-964 The Honorable Michael A. Casati, Judge On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 22A-AD-80 Opinion by Justice Massa Chief Justice Rush and Justices Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur. Massa, Justice Adoptive Parents challenge a Court of Appeals’ decision requiring them to provide notice to biological Father of the temporary custody of Child, rendering the trial court’s order void for lack of personal jurisdiction. While the panel below erred in requiring notice in a temporary custody matter, we resolve this case on the narrower ground of no appellate jurisdiction. Facts and Procedural History P.L. (“Father”) is the biological father of S.L. (“Child”). Child was removed twelve days after birth and placed with M.H. and A.H. (“Adoptive Parents”) for fourteen months. In May 2015, Grandparents petitioned for guardianship, which the trial court granted the next day. Child resided with Grandparents and spent weekends, holidays, and vacations with Adoptive Parents. By May 2019, Child was placed full time with Adoptive Parents. In June 2020, Adoptive Parents petitioned to adopt Child, and separately moved for temporary custody, and to consolidate the adoption and temporary custody cases with the Hamilton Superior Court under Trial Rule 42(D). Father was not served the petition or motions. And while Father was entitled to notice of the adoption petition, Ind. Code §§ 31-192.5-3, 31-19-9-1, the law requires no such notice of temporary custody actions, I.C. § 31-19-2-13. The Hamilton Superior Court thus conducted a hearing on the motion for temporary custody with only Adoptive Parents and Grandparents present. On July 8, 2020, the court granted Adoptive Parents temporary custody, determining it was in Child’s best interest to be placed with Adoptive Parents while the adoption petition was pending. More than a year later, Father filed a Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside the trial court’s order of custody, arguing the order was void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on a lack of notice to which he was not legally entitled. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-AD-00158 | June 20, 2023 Page 2 of 6 The trial court denied Father’s motion, finding the temporary custody order was not void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction, and explained that Indiana Code section 31-19-2-13 authorizes an ex parte proceeding in temporary custody matters. Father appealed. In a unanimous, unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court erred in denying Father’s Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside the temporary custody order. P.L. v. M.H. and A.H., 194 N.E.3d 654, 2022 WL 3724896, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2022). The panel reasoned that because Adoptive Parents failed to serve Father with notice of their adoption petition, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Father, rendering the temporary custody order void. Id. at *2–3. Adoptive Parents sought transfer, which we now grant. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). Standard of Review An appellate court must have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s order, and a court has a duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the case. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Appellate jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties or the trial court if the order is “not appealable either as a final judgment or under Trial Rule 54(B).” Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind. 2003). “Whether an order is a final judgment governs the appellate courts’ subject matter jurisdiction.” Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 757 (Ind. 2014) (citing Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 451). Appellate jurisdiction can be raised at any time and “the appellate court may consider the issue sua sponte.” Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 451 (citing Albright v. Pyle, 637 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)). “Jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo.” Young v. Estate of Sweeney, 808 N.E.2d 1217, 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Discussion and Decision This Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is identified by the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, which were adopted by this Court. See IND. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-AD-00158 | June 20, 2023 Page 3 of 6 CONST. art. VII, § 4 (stating the Supreme Court “shall exercise appellate jurisdiction under such terms and conditions as specified by rules[.]”). Appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments, interlocutory orders, and appeals from agency decisions.1 Ind. Appellate Rule 5. This Court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction “is generally limited to appeals from final judgments.” Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246, 251 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fields, 842 N.E.2d 804, 806 (Ind. 2006)). The trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside is not a final appealable order. Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H) defines a final judgment as a judgment that “disposes of all claims as to all parties[,]” App. R. 2(H)(1), or “the trial court in writing expressly determines under Trial Rule 54(B) . . . there is no just reason for delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of judgment . . . .”App. R. 2(H)(2)2; Ramsey, 959 N.E.2d at 251–52. Specifically, a final judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H)(1) disposes “all issues as to all parties, thereby ending the particular case[,]” and “leaves nothing for future determination.” Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 451 (internal citation omitted). Once a final judgment is issued by the trial court, it does not require a future decision by that same court. Thompson v. Thompson, 259 Ind. 266, 269, 286 N.E.2d 657, 659 (1972) (citing Seaney v. Ayres, 238 Ind. 493, 151 N.E.2d 295 (1958)). This is because “[t]he purpose of the final judgment rule is to prevent delay in the trial of lawsuits which would result from limitless intermediate appeals.” Thompson, 259 Ind. at Indiana Appellate Rule 14 instructs that an interlocutory appeal may proceed as: an interlocutory appeal of right, as a certified discretionary interlocutory appeal, or as an interlocutory appeal from the grant or denial of a class action certification. App. R. 14(A)–(C). Indiana courts have appellate “jurisdiction to entertain actions . . . and to review final orders, rulings, decisions, and certified questions of an Administrative Agency.” App. R. 5(C)(1). We limit our discussion to the narrow question of whether this was a final appealable judgment because this case does not present an interlocutory or agency order. 1 Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H) contains three additional categories of final judgments: final judgments under Trial Rule 60(C), a ruling on a mandatory or permissive motion to correct error, and an order “otherwise deemed final by law.” App. R. 2(H)(3)–(5). However, these categories are not relevant to this case because they are not implicated here. 2 Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-AD-00158 | June 20, 2023 Page 4 of 6 269, 286 N.E.2d at 659 (citing Lake Cnty. Trust Co. v. Ind. Port Comm’n, 248 Ind. 362, 229 N.E.2d 457 (1967); Mak-Saw-Ba Club v. Coffin, 169 Ind. 204, 82 N.E. 461 (1907)). Final judgments end the case at the trial level. See Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 451 (explaining the trial court’s grant of a motion “was not a final judgment because it did not end the case.”). The trial court consolidated the two cases pending before it under Trial Rule 42(D), thereby creating one case. But this one case had two separate matters pending before it: one was a motion for temporary custody and the other was a petition for adoption. On July 8, 2020, the Hamilton Superior Court issued one order addressing Father’s preliminary motion to set aside temporary custody, finding it in Child’s best interest to grant temporary custody pending the adoption under Indiana Code section 3119-2-13. Because the petition for adoption was still pending at the time the trial court issued this preliminary order—thus not disposing of all the claims—the trial court’s July 8 order was not a final judgment. Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 451–52; App. R. 2(H)(1) (“A judgment is a final judgment if . . . it disposes of all claims as to all parties[.]”). The trial court’s order is also not a final judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H)(2) because it lacks a key phrase. An order “as to less than all of the issues, claims, or parties in an action may become final only by meeting the requirements of T.R. 54(B).” Martin v. Amoco Oil Co., 696 N.E.2d 383, 385 (Ind. 1998). Trial Rule 54(B) requires a court’s order to “expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay, and in writing expressly direct[] entry of judgment.” T.R. 54(B); Fields, 842 N.E.2d at 806. These express directives are required “to provide a bright line so there is no mistaking whether an interim order is or is not appealable[,]” Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 452, and safeguard “judicial economy by protecting against the appeal of orders that are not yet final[,]” Front Row Motors, LLC, 5 N.E.3d at 757 (quoting Paulson v. Centier Bank, 704 N.E.2d 482, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied). Yet the trial court’s order did not use the key phrase and state that there was “no just reason for delay” or direct entry of judgment. App. R. 2(H)(2). Instead, the Hamilton Superior Court entered an interim order, which lacked the key phrasing or an express directive for entry of judgment and granted temporary custody to Adoptive Parents until further action by the court. Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 452. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-AD-00158 | June 20, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Conclusion Hamilton Superior Court granted only temporary custody while the adoption petition was still pending. Its order was not a final judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H) because it neither disposed of all claims for all parties, Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 451, nor stated, “there was no just reason for delay,” T.R. 54(B). The appeal is dismissed. Rush, C.J., and Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Paul R. Sadler Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, LLC Indianapolis, IN ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Bryan H. Babb Steven D. Groth Seema R. Shah Timothy R. Stoesz Bose McKinney & Evans LLP Indianapolis, IN Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-AD-00158 | June 20, 2023 Page 6 of 6
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.
