Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-990 | October 30, 2019 Page 1 of 3

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

Mark S. Lenyo

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Mark F. James

Anderson, Agostino & Keller P.C.

South Bend, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Adoption of

A.K.G.;

P.S.,

Appellant,

v.

J.M.,

Appellee.

October 30, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-AD-990

Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate 

Court

The Honorable Barbara J. 

Johnston, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

71J01-1808-AD-114

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] P.S. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order denying Father’s motion to 

contest the adoption petition filed by J.M. (“Stepfather”). Father presents three 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-990 | October 30, 2019 Page 2 of 3

issues for our review. However, because we are without jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal, we do not reach the merits. Thus, we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 13, 2018, Stepfather filed a petition to adopt his stepdaughter 

A.K.G. (“Child”). On September 6, Father filed a motion to contest the 

adoption. Following an evidentiary hearing on “the adoption petition and 

[Father’s] objection thereto” on March 29, the trial court “approved” the 

adoption petition and denied Father’s motion to contest the adoption on April 

3, 2019. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 36. However, the court scheduled the 

adoption petition for a “final hearing” to be held on May 13. Id. Accordingly, 

the court’s April 3 order denying Father’s motion to contest the adoption was 

an interlocutory order. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[3] In his notice of appeal, Father purports to appeal from a final judgment. 

However, the trial court’s order denying his motion to contest the adoption did 

not dispose of “all claims as to all parties.” Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H). Rather, 

because the final hearing on the adoption petition had been scheduled for May 

13, the court’s April 3 order was an interlocutory order. Father did not seek 

certification of the order pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B), and the 

order is not appealable as a matter of right under Appellate Rule 14(A).

[4] “‘It is the duty of this Court to determine whether we have jurisdiction before 

proceeding to determine the rights of the parties on the merits.’” DuSablon v. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-990 | October 30, 2019 Page 3 of 3

Jackson County Bank, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 18A-MI-2259, 2019 WL 4582946, at 

*5 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2019) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 

N.E.2d 191, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). Jurisdiction is a question 

of law we review de novo. Id. Here, the order from which Father appeals is 

neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. And, in 

response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause, Father acknowledged that the 

final adoption hearing has not been held to date. This Court is, therefore,

without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of Father’s appeal. See 

R.W. v. G.C. (In re Adoption of S.J.), 967 N.E.2d 1063, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) 

(dismissing appeal from order denying motion to contest adoption where final 

adoption hearing had not yet been held).

[5] Dismissed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.