Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 1 of 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Michelle Lewis

Monticello, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

M.L.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

B.M., et al.,

Appellees-Plaintiffs

June 21, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

41A04-1612-GU-2700

Appeal from the Johnson County 

Superior Court

The Honorable Kevin Barton, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

41D01-1303-GU-29

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] M.L. (Mother) appeals, pro se, the trial court’s order denying her petition for 

termination of a guardianship over her teenage son (Child) held by B.M. 

(Grandmother) and M.M. (collectively, Grandparents). Mother presents a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 2 of 10

number of arguments on appeal, but we determine the essence of her argument 

to be that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her petition.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Child was born February 14, 2001, during the marriage of Mother and T.P. 

(Father). Mother and Father divorced while living in Colorado when Child 

was about eight years old. Father maintained custody of Child, and Mother 

exercised parenting time, which was sometimes sporadic. Mother has never 

paid support for Child. 

[4] Due to a long history of seizures, Mother does not have a driver’s license. Her 

medical condition also affects her ability to maintain employment. She moved 

a number of times within Colorado following her divorce.

[5] Father remarried in 2011 and had a daughter with his new wife in Colorado. 

From 2011 to 2013, Mother’s visits with Child were infrequent. Throughout 

his childhood, Child regularly visited and spent summers with Grandparents –

his paternal grandmother and step-grandfather – in Indiana. Father had a 

tumultuous relationship at times with each of his wives, and Grandparents 

offered refuge and stability for Child.

[6] In February 2013, Father sent Child to stay with Grandparents. Father then 

committed suicide on February 19, 2013, in Colorado. Grandparents notified 

Mother and bought a plane ticket for her to move back to Indiana in March. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 3 of 10

Mother was not healthy enough or financially secure to take custody of Child, 

so she consented to Grandparents’ guardianship. On April 1, 2013, an order 

appointing Grandparents as guardians over Child was entered.

[7] Mother and Grandparents had a good relationship, and Grandparents did not 

restrict Mother’s access to Child. They even assisted in transportation for 

parenting time, as Mother did not live in the same town and could not drive. 

Mother was always welcome in Grandparents’ home.

[8] Mother met M.S. in July 2013 and introduced him to Child about a month

later, indicating that she was going to marry M.S. and regain custody of Child. 

Thereafter, on August 22, Mother forwarded to Grandmother a bio Mother had 

received from M.S. when they met online. Something just did not seem right to 

Grandmother, so she performed an internet search using M.S.’s name. She 

learned that M.S. had committed a string of bank robberies in 2008. M.S. was 

described in an article as a “troubled man with mental-health issues” who had 

also “victimized relatives”. Exhibits, Exhibit P-5. Further, while at an inpatient 

mental health center awaiting trial on the robbery charges, M.S. left the facility 

and robbed another bank to cover a bar bill. Along with the imposition of a 

four and one-half year federal prison sentence in August 2009, M.S. was 

ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment in prison. M.S.’s mental health issues 

apparently included “major depression, chronic bi-polar disorder, chronic 

schizoaffective disorder, and alcoholism.” Exhibits, Exhibit P-7.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 4 of 10

[9] After discovering this information, Grandmother became concerned and 

notified Mother via email on August 28, 2013. Mother confronted M.S. that 

night about his undisclosed criminal past and mental health issues. She then 

contacted Grandmother the following day to express that M.S. was a changed 

man and deserves a second chance. Grandmother responded in part:

I believe that people can change and that they deserve a chance 

to prove they are changed. However, I don’t believe that you 

have known [M.S.] long enough to know for sure if he is 

changed. And from what you have told me, it doesn’t sound like 

he was honest with you about his past until you confronted him 

about my e-mail. The bio you shared with me from [M.S.] 

certainly does not indicate his criminal past or his mental illness 

or his alcoholism. I am willing to give him time to prove he is a 

changed man, but I am not willing to take chances with [Child’s] 

safety.... It would certainly be in [Child’s] best interest and yours 

for you to get to know [M.S.] well enough to know for sure if he 

is being honest with you and that he is changed....

[We] are willing to bring [Child] up to visit as long as [M.S.] is 

not going to be there; but until we are more comfortable with this 

situation, we will be staying in Lowell and bringing him back 

home. We believe this is the best right now since you don’t see 

anything wrong with this situation.

You have always been welcome in our home, and still are if you 

want to come here sometimes to visit....

Exhibits, Exhibit P-3. Mother and M.S. married in October 2013.

[10] The relationship between Mother and Grandmother became strained when 

Grandmother restricted visits and requested certain information regarding M.S.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 5 of 10

that Mother and M.S. refused to provide. Grandparents’ home remained open 

for visits, but Mother refused to spend the night there “[a]s a matter of 

principle” because M.S. was not welcome. Appellant’s Brief at 9. Additionally, 

Grandparents drove Child to visit Mother for holidays and special occasions, 

but after December 2013, they would not allow overnight stays. In sum, 

Mother did not see Child regularly after marrying M.S. Mother’s 

communication with Child became primarily through text messages.

[11] On June 1, 2016, more than three years after Grandparents obtained custody of 

Child, Mother filed a petition for termination of guardianship. In the petition, 

Mother claimed that she was now financially, emotionally, and mentally able to 

provide a stable and supportive home for Child.

[12] In a series of text messages in early August 2016, Mother and Child discussed

whether Child wanted to move and live with Mother and M.S. Child indicated 

that he was comfortable with his life and wished to stay with Grandparents. 

Child was sad because he did not want to hurt Mother or have her blame 

Grandmother for his decision.

[13] A brief evidentiary hearing on the petition was held on September 1, 2016, at 

which Mother represented herself and Grandparents were represented by 

counsel. In addition to Mother and Grandmother testifying, exhibits were 

admitted into evidence and the trial court conducted an in-camera interview 

with Child – who was then fifteen years old. The court then took the matter 

under advisement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 6 of 10

[14] On October 3, 2016, the trial court issued its order denying Mother’s motion to 

terminate the guardianship. The court recognized that Mother’s epilepsy was 

being addressed through medication and that she now had a stable residence as 

a result of her marriage. Based on the strong emotional bond between Child 

and Grandparents and Child’s lack of a close relationship with Mother, 

however, the court concluded that Grandparents had established by clear and 

convincing evidence that the guardianship should continue. The court 

continued:

A relationship between Mother and [Child] needs to be 

normalized as a precondition to termination of guardianship. 

Regular visitation needs to be established. Mother has made 

clear that her husband will be involved in visitation. From the 

evidence, the Court does not find that [Grandparents] have 

established endangerment of the child’s physical condition or 

significant impairment of emotional development under Indiana 

Code 31-17-4-1. While [M.S.] does have a prior history of 

mental illness and criminal convictions, the evidence is that the 

mental illness is controlled by medication and the character 

statements offered by Mother into evidence are not adverse to 

establishment of visitation.

Appendix at 9-10. Accordingly, the court granted Mother parenting time in 

accordance with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

Discussion & Decision

[15] Mother’s pro-se arguments on appeal are all over the place. She asserts that the 

trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous but then does not attack any specific 

findings of fact. She also claims that the trial court based its decision on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 7 of 10

“distorted conception of the facts.” Appellant’s Brief at 7. Mother argues that 

Grandparents alienated Child from her as a result of the restrictions they 

imposed on the exercise of her parenting time. She also asserts, without further 

explanation, that the trial court failed to take into account “any of the 

undisputed claims of wrong doings of [Grandparents] that have gone 

unanswered. i.e. constructive fraud, perjury and contempt.” Id. at 10. Finally, 

Mother claims that the trial court was not impartial because it conducted an incamera interview of Child and that the court committed fundamental error.

[16] We remind Mother that a pro-se litigant is held to the same standards as a 

licensed attorney. See Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). 

Where a litigant fails to present cogent arguments on appeal, we will not 

become an advocate for that party or address arguments that are inappropriate 

or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood. Id. at 984. Waiver 

notwithstanding, we will address whether the trial court abused its discretion by 

refusing to terminate the guardianship.

[17] Trial court orders in guardianship proceedings are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion with a preference for granting latitude and deference to our trial 

courts in family law matters. In re Guardianship of M.N.S., 23 N.E.3d 759, 765-

66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In determining whether the court abused its discretion, 

we review its findings and conclusions, and we may not set aside the findings or 

judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 766. We will not reweigh the 

evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses; instead, we will consider the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 8 of 10

evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn

in favor of the judgment. Id.

[18] “In a custody dispute between a natural parent and a third party, there is a 

strong presumption in all cases that the natural parent should have custody of 

his or her child.” In re Guardianship of B.W., 45 N.E.3d 860, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2015). In a termination of guardianship proceeding, once the natural parent 

meets his or her minimal burden of persuasion – which was met in this case –

the guardian must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child’s best 

interests are substantially and significantly served by continued placement with 

the guardian. See In re Guardianship of M.N.S., 23 N.E.3d at 766. Our Supreme 

Court has explained this burden as follows:

The trial court must be convinced that placement with a person 

other than the natural parent represents a substantial and 

significant advantage to the child. The presumption will not be 

overcome merely because “a third party could provide the better 

things in life for the child.” In a proceeding to determine 

whether to place a child with a person other than the natural 

parent, evidence establishing the natural parent’s unfitness or 

acquiescence, or demonstrating that a strong emotional bond has 

formed between the child and the third person, would of course 

be important, but the trial court is not limited to these criteria.

The issue is not merely the “fault” of the natural parent. Rather, 

it is whether the important and strong presumption that a child’s 

interests are best served by placement with the natural parent is 

clearly and convincingly overcome by evidence proving that the 

child’s best interests are substantially and significantly served by 

placement with another person. 

In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283, 287 (Ind. 2002) (citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 9 of 10

[19] In the instant case, the trial court determined that Mother was not unfit to care 

for Child and that the stability issues that had led to the guardianship no longer 

existed. Despite this, the court concluded that it was clearly and convincingly 

in Child’s best interests to remain with Grandparents. This conclusion was 

based on the strong emotional bond Child had formed with Grandparents and 

his lack of a close relationship with Mother. Additionally, the trial court noted 

that Child would likely have difficulty transitioning to a public-school setting, 

which would occur if Mother obtained custody.

[20] Mother complains that the relationship issues with Child were caused by 

Grandparents’ restriction of her parenting time after she married M.S. The 

record does not compel – and the trial court did not make – such a finding. 

Certainly, Mother bore much of the responsibility for the quality of her 

relationship with Child. She and M.S. steadfastly refused to provide 

Grandparents with information to alleviate concerns regarding M.S.’s alarming 

past. Mother also rejected opportunities to spend time with Child at 

Grandparents’ home, where she had always been welcomed. Essentially, for at 

least two years, she acquiesced in seeing Child only on special occasions and 

otherwise communicating with him through text messages. Mother waited 

until June 2016 to file her petition to terminate the guardianship and to 

challenge the restrictions imposed on her parenting time. By this time, Child 

was fifteen and had formed a much stronger bond with Grandparents than 

Mother, who had not had custody of Child since her divorce from Father when 

child was an eight-year old.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1612-GU-2700 | June 21, 2017 Page 10 of 10

[21] The trial court’s determination was, of course, influenced by its in-camera 

interview with Child. Despite Mother’s protests below and on appeal, there 

was nothing improper about the trial court speaking to the fifteen-year old 

about his desires regarding custody. See Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8(3) (in making 

custody determinations, trial court shall consider “[t]he wishes of the child, 

with more consideration given to the child’s wishes if the child is at least 

fourteen (14) years of age”).

[22] Although the trial court denied the petition to terminate the guardianship, it

recognized the need to establish regular parenting time between Mother and 

Child. To this end, the court found that the evidence did not establish that 

parenting time by Mother would endanger Child’s physical health or 

significantly impair his emotional development. See I.C. § 31-17-4-1(a). 

Accordingly, the trial court granted Mother parenting time in accordance with 

the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

[23] On this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion 

when it denied Mother’s petition to terminate the guardianship.

[24] Judgment affirmed.

[25] Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.