Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1923 | March 9, 2020 Page 1 of 7

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Nathan D. Hoggatt

Fort Wayne, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re the Adoption of: S.A.C., 

Minor Child 

M.M., 

Appellant, 

v. 

Indiana Department of Child 

Services, 

Appellee. 

March 9, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-AD-1923 

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Charles F. Pratt, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

02D08-1508-AD-101 

Brown, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1923 | March 9, 2020 Page 2 of 7

[1] M.M. appeals the Allen Superior Court’s December 11, 2018 order. While he 

presents several issues for review, we find one issue dispositive, which is 

whether the trial court’s order is an appealable order. We dismiss. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 2, 2005, S.C. (“Child”) was born to L.B. and T.M. (“Mother”), 

who married M.M. in July of the same year.1

 On August 17, 2015, M.M. filed 

a petition for adoption of Child under cause number 02D08-1508-AD-101 

(“Cause No. 101”). 

[3] In June 2016, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition for the 

termination of parental rights of Mother and L.B. under cause numbers 02D08-

1510-JT-124 and -125, respectively. In September 2016, DCS filed a motion to 

intervene as a party in M.M.’s adoption, which the court granted in January 

2017. 

[4] On February 7, 2017, the court terminated the parental rights of Mother and 

L.B. in an order stating in part: 

THE COURT NOW FINDS AND CONCLUDES that:

* * * * *

3. On November 18, 2014, this Court found probable cause to 

believe [Child] was a Child in Need of Services under Ind. Code 

1 M.M. and Mother divorced in May 2016, remarried in October 2017, and divorced again in June 2018.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1923 | March 9, 2020 Page 3 of 7

31-34-1-1 [in cause number 02D08-1411-JC-551 (“Cause No. 

551”)] . . . .

* * * * *

5. On December 11, 2014, an Additional Initial Hearing was held 

in which the child was continued in licensed foster care and a Fact 

Finding Trial was set.

6. A Review hearing was held on February 12, 2015 and the 

Court ordered the child continued in licensed foster care.

7. On February 24, 2015, a second Additional Initial Hearing was 

held in which [Mother], [M.M.] and [L.B.] made admissions to

establish a factual basis for the Court to adjudicate the child a 

Child in Need of Services under Ind. Code 31-34-1-1 [in Cause 

No. 551].

Exhibits Volume I at 105-106. The court further ordered Child be made a ward 

of DCS “for all purposes including adoption” and that DCS provide the 

necessary supervision and services to insure Child’s care and permanency under 

Cause No. 551. Id. at 115.

[5] In April 2017, Child’s foster parents, J.C. and P.C. (together, “Foster Parents”), 

filed a petition for adoption under cause number 02D08-1704-AD-72 (“Cause 

No. 72”), which they later amended. On June 12, 2017, the court issued an 

order stating Cause Nos. 101 and 72 were consolidated. 

[6] On August 24, 2018, the court held a hearing to determine whether the consent 

of DCS to M.M.’s petition for adoption was required. On September 20, 2018, 

M.M. filed a motion to supplement the record with newly discovered evidence. 

The court held a hearing on the motion before issuing on December 11, 2018, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1923 | March 9, 2020 Page 4 of 7

its “Findings and Order Re: Motion to Supplement the Record and Findings 

and Order Regarding the Requirement of Consent By the Department of Child 

Services.” The court denied the motion to supplement and found DCS “is 

acting in [Child’s] best interest in withholding its consent” to M.M.’s adoption, 

the refusal to consent was not unreasonably withheld, and the consent of DCS 

to M.M.’s petition to adoption is necessary. Appellant’s Appendix Volume II 

at 11, 14. 

[7] On January 11, 2019, M.M. filed a Motion to Correct Error. The court held a 

hearing on the motion on June 18, 2019, during which M.M., Foster Parents, 

and DCS appeared by counsel. On July 24, 2019, the court issued an order 

denying the motion. M.M. filed a notice of appeal on August 16, 2019. 

Discussion

[8] The dispositive issue is whether the trial court’s December 11, 2018 order is an 

appealable order. “The authority of the Indiana Supreme Court and Court of 

Appeals to exercise appellate 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), reh’g denied). We have 

the duty to determine whether we have jurisdiction over an appeal before 

proceeding to determine the rights of the parties on the merits. Allstate Ins. Co. v. 

Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Pursuant to 

Ind. Appellate Rule 5, this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final 

judgments of trial courts and only those interlocutory orders from trial courts 

that are brought in accordance with Ind. Appellate Rule 14.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1923 | March 9, 2020 Page 5 of 7

[9] Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H) provides that a judgment is a final judgment if:

(1) it disposes of all claims as to all parties;

(2) the trial court in writing expressly determines under Trial 

Rule 54(B) or Trial Rule 56(C) that there is no just reason for 

delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of judgment (i) 

under Trial Rule 54(B) as to fewer than all the claims or parties, 

or (ii) under Trial Rule 56(C) as to fewer than all the issues, 

claims or parties;

(3) it is deemed final under Trial Rule 60(C);

(4) it is a ruling on either a mandatory or permissive Motion to 

Correct Error which was timely filed under Trial Rule 59 or 

Criminal Rule 16; or

(5) it is otherwise deemed final by law.

[10] The record reveals that the trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother

and L.B. with regard to Child, which it made a ward of DCS “for all purposes 

including adoption,” and ordered M.M.’s petition consolidated for trial 

purposes with Foster Parents’ petition in June 2017. Appellant’s Appendix 

Volume II at 41. M.M. appeals from the December 11, 2018 “Findings and 

Order Re: Motion to Supplement the Record and Findings and Order 

Regarding the Requirement of Consent By the Department of Child Services.” 

Notice of Appeal, August 16, 2019. Though it found DCS’s consent to M.M.’s 

adoption necessary and further that DCS had not unreasonably withheld its 

consent to that adoption, the court did not resolve fully the contested adoption 

of Child. Furthermore, although M.M. filed a motion on January 11, 2019, 

titled “Motion to Correct Error,” that motion is more accurately characterized 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1923 | March 9, 2020 Page 6 of 7

as a motion to reconsider the trial court’s December 11, 2018 order. See

Hubbard v. Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (“[M]otions to 

reconsider are properly made and ruled upon prior to the entry of final 

judgment” (citing Ind. Trial Rule 53.4(A)); Trial Rule 59(C) (providing that 

motions to correct error are to be filed “not later than thirty (30) days after the 

entry of a final judgment”) (emphasis added)). Under the circumstances, the

December 11, 2018 judgment was not a final judgment from the consolidated

pending cases, and the court did not state there was no just reason for delay 

under Ind. Trial Rule 54. 

[11] M.M. is therefore appealing from an interlocutory order. Parties are permitted 

to appeal “as a matter of right” certain interlocutory orders.2 The court’s order 

does not fall under any of these categories. Thus, M.M. was not entitled to 

2 Ind. Appellate Rule 14(A) provides:

Appeals from the following interlocutory orders are taken as a matter of right by filing a Notice of 

Appeal with the Clerk within thirty (30) days after the notation of the interlocutory order in the 

Chronological Case Summary:

(1) For the payment of money;

(2) To compel the execution of any document;

(3) To compel the delivery or assignment of any securities, evidence of debt, 

documents or things in action;

(4) For the sale or delivery of the possession of real property;

(5) Granting or refusing to grant, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve a preliminary 

injunction;

(6) Appointing or refusing to appoint a receiver, or revoking or refusing to revoke the 

appointment of a receiver;

(7) For a writ of habeas corpus not otherwise authorized to be taken directly to the 

Supreme Court;

(8) Transferring or refusing to transfer a case under Trial Rule 75; and

(9) Issued by an Administrative Agency that by statute is expressly required to be 

appealed as a mandatory interlocutory appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1923 | March 9, 2020 Page 7 of 7

appeal the order as a matter of right. An appeal may be taken from other 

interlocutory orders if the trial court certifies its order and this Court accepts 

jurisdiction over the appeal, Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B), or if an interlocutory 

appeal is provided by statute. Ind. Appellate Rule 14(D). There is no 

indication that M.M. sought certification from the trial court or permission 

from this Court to file a discretionary interlocutory appeal, and he has not 

stated a statutory right to appeal.

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss M.M.’s appeal of the trial court’s 

December 11, 2018 order.

[13] Dismissed.

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.