Case Title: RICHARDS ET UX. v. Caysinger

Citation: 234 N.E.2d 499, 249 Ind. 671

Docket Number: 31,082

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1968-03-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
249 Ind. 671 (1968)
234 N.E.2d 499
RICHARDS ET UX.
v.
CAYSINGER.
No. 31,082.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed March 4, 1968.
Lloyd Whitmer, of Tell City and Theodore Lockyear, of Evansville, for appellants.
LEWIS, C.J.
This is an appeal from the Trial Court's order sustaining appellee's motion for a new trial. Appellee *672 and his wife were divorced; appellee, the natural father, was awarded custody of his son, the child involved in this action.
On October 16, 1965, the Perry Circuit Court issued an order of adoption granting the petition filed by the appellants (the maternal grandparents), thereby making them the adoptive parents of said child.
On January 27, 1966, appellee filed a complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus wherein he alleged that he was the natural parent of the child and was entitled to custody by right of a divorce decree. He attacks the adoption proceedings in his reply to appellants' return on the grounds that the adoption proceedings were false, fraudulent; that he had no notice; that he did not consent; and that he had not abandoned the child.
After the trial, the Court, on June 4, 1966, rendered judgment denying the appellee custody of the child and upheld the validity of the adoption. As a result, appellee filed a motion for a new trial. This motion was sustained by the Trial Court for the reason as set out in its Nunc Pro Tunc Entry, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:
On appeal, appellants raise two errors:
At trial, the appellants unquestionably proved that their adoption of the child was valid.
The Trial Court made a finding as to the validity of the adoption proceedings. Subsequent to this, it sustained the appellee's motion for a new trial, but only for the reason as expressly set out by it in its Nunc Pro Tunc Entry, supra.
Once the adoption itself has been adjudged valid in a proper court of law, a natural parent may not be allowed to commence an action for custody in the absence of new circumstances permitting such.
In re Bryant's Adoption v. Kurtz et al. (1963), 134 Ind. App. 480, 189 N.E.2d 593, reads, in part, as follows:
Therefore, we conclude that when the Court made its finding as to the validity of the adoption proceedings under a direct attack for fraud, lack of notice and consent, the question of custody was not in issue. The natural father had no rights remaining to the child and, therefore, trial on the separate and distinct issue of custody would be meaningless.
The ruling of the Trial Court in granting the motion for a new trial is reversed and the Court is instructed to enter a proper order denying the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
*674 Arterburn, Hunter and Mote, JJ., concur.
Jackson, J., dissents.
NOTE.  Reported in 234 N.E.2d 499.