Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-120 | May 29, 2019 Page 1 of 5

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

Kristina L. Lynn

Lynn and Stein, P.C.

Wabash, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES

Justin R. Wall

Wall Legal Services

Huntington, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Adoption of D.J.B.,

B.B. and B.M.B. (Minor 

Children) 

D.B. (Father), 

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

D.T. (Stepfather) and E.T.

(Mother),

Appellees-Petitioners

May 29, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-AD-120

Appeal from the Huntington 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Jeffrey R. 

Heffelfinger, Judge Pro Tem

Trial Court Cause Nos.

35C01-1811-AD-28, -30, -31

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-120 | May 29, 2019 Page 2 of 5

[1] In 2013, D.T. (“Stepfather”) married E.T. (“Mother”) (collectively 

“Appellees”). Since then, Appellees have lived with Mother’s three minor 

children, D.J.B., B.B., and B.M.B. (collectively “the Children”). In 2018, 

Appellees filed petitions for Stepfather to adopt the Children. The Children’s 

father, D.B. (“Father”), contested the adoption petitions. Following a hearing, 

in December 2018, the trial court issued an order concluding that Father’s 

consent to adoption was not required pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-19-

9-8(a)(1) and -(a)(2) and set a final hearing date on the adoption petitions. 

Father appeals the court’s determination that his consent to the adoption is not 

required. Appellees challenge this Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 

Concluding that the order from which Father appeals is neither a final 

judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss.

[2] Appellees maintain that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this 

appeal. A challenge to appellate subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at 

any time by either party or sua sponte. In re Adoption of S.J., 967 N.E.2d 1063, 

1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Indiana Appellate Rule 5(A) gives this Court

jurisdiction in all appeals from final judgments. Appellate Rule 2(H)(1) defines 

a final judgment as one that “disposes of all claims as to all parties[.]” Here, as

in S.J., the trial court specifically concluded that Father’s consent to the 

adoption was not required but did not finalize the adoption. We conclude, as 

did the S.J. court, 

[that] the trial court’s ... order concluding that Father’s consent 

to the adoption was not required did not dispose of all issues as 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-120 | May 29, 2019 Page 3 of 5

to all parties or put an end to the case because the relief requested 

in the adoption petition, i.e. the adoption of [the Children], was 

neither granted nor denied. Rather, the trial court ruled that, 

provided all other statutory requirements for the adoption were 

met, the petition could proceed to a final hearing. Accordingly, 

the trial court’s order concluding that Father’s consent to the 

adoption was not required is not a final judgment within the 

meaning of Appellate Rule 2(H)(1) because it left the question of 

whether the adoption petition would be granted for future 

determination.

967 N.E.2d at 1065.

[3] Father asserts that the trial court specifically gave him the right to appeal by 

including the following language in its order: “Respondent has been notified in 

open court that he has the right to appeal this Order and that he must file his 

Notice of Appeal with[in] thirty (30) days of today’s date.” Appealed Order at 

1. Trial Rule 54(B) provides an avenue for the trial court to enter a final 

judgment on fewer than all claims and reads in relevant part:

the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or 

more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an 

express determination that there is no just reason for delay and 

upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.... A 

judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or 

parties is final when the court in writing expressly determines that 

there is no just reason for delay, and in writing expressly directs entry of 

judgment, and an appeal may be taken upon this or other issues 

resolved by the judgment; but in other cases a judgment, decision 

or order as to less than all the claims and parties is not final.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-120 | May 29, 2019 Page 4 of 5

(Emphasis added.) Father is correct that the trial court may deem final and 

appealable an otherwise nonfinal, non-appealable order by inserting certain 

language into its order. However, that language must be the specific language

used in Trial Rule 54(B). S.J., 967 N.E.2d at 1065-66. See Martin v. Amoco Oil 

Co., 696 N.E.2d 383, 385 (Ind. 1998) (adopting “bright line” rule requiring strict 

compliance with Trial Rule 54(B) before order disposing of fewer than all 

claims will be deemed final and appealable by right), cert. denied. In its written 

order, the trial court neither specified that “there is no just reason for delay” nor 

“expressly directed entry of judgment.” The trial court did not use the specific 

language required by the rule and case law, and as such, the order is not a final, 

appealable order. 

[4] That said, Indiana Appellate Rule 14 provides yet another vehicle for obtaining 

appellate subject matter jurisdiction, the interlocutory appeal. Subsection (A) of 

the rule lists interlocutory orders that may be appealed as a matter of right, and 

the trial court’s order is not one of those orders. As such, Father was limited to 

seeking a discretionary interlocutory appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(B). 

Id. However, a discretionary interlocutory appeal requires certification of the 

order by the trial court and acceptance of jurisdiction by this Court. Id. (citing 

Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B)). Here, certification and acceptance did not occur. 

As a result, the challenged order is not appealable pursuant to Indiana 

Appellate Rule 14. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-120 | May 29, 2019 Page 5 of 5

[5] The trial court’s order is neither final nor properly appealable as an 

interlocutory order. As such, we dismiss Father’s appeal.1 

[6] Dismissed.

Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

 

1

 Appellees argue that they are entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E), 

which gives us discretion to award attorney’s fees when an appeal is frivolous or in bad faith. We reject 

Appellees’ argument and deny their request for attorney’s fees.