Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 1 of 14

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

Matthew C. Maples 

Hocker & Associates, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES

Pamela G. Grant-Taylor

Law Office of Pamela Grant

Taylor

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Guardianship of: A.S.S.

Glen Scisney,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Saleem Adams and Tamara 

Adams,

Appellees-Petitioners.

May 11, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1708-GU-1921

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Steven R. 

Eichholtz, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49D08-1604-GU-11850 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 2 of 14

[1] Glen Scisney appeals the trial court’s order naming Saleem and Tamara Adams 

as the guardians of A.S.S. (“Child”). Scisney raises several issues which we

revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in naming the 

Adamses as the guardians of Child. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Child and A.E.S., who was Child’s twin sibling (Child and A.E.S., together, the 

“Children”), were born on January 27, 2016, to Kimberly Scisney (“Mother”).1 

Mother was overwhelmed with the idea of parenting the Children and 

approached the Adamses, who attended the same church as Mother, as 

potential persons who might adopt the Children. The Children were placed 

with the Adamses on March 20, 2016, and Mother later signed a power of 

attorney and health powers of attorney granting attorney-in-fact powers to the 

Adamses to act on behalf of the Children. A short time later, Mother died as a 

result of an automobile accident. On April 5, 2016, the Adamses filed a 

petition requesting that the court appoint them as Child’s guardians and stating 

that Child had been in their care since March 20, 2016, when Mother expressed 

that her desire for Child to live with them, and that both of Child’s parents had 

signed a power of attorney on March 28, 2016. The court appointed a guardian

ad litem (the “GAL”), and the GAL filed a report with the court on June 20, 

 

1 The trial court issued a similar order naming the Adamses as the guardians of A.E.S. under cause number 

49D08-1604-GU-11848 (“Cause No. 848”). We also issue a memorandum decision today affirming the trial 

court’s order in Cause No. 848. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 3 of 14

2016. The court held a hearing on that day and later issued an order stating 

that Scisney is the maternal grandfather of Child and that Scisney appeared at 

the June 20, 2016 hearing and indicated he would be seeking guardianship and 

did not contest the appointment of the Adamses as temporary guardians and 

granting temporary guardianship of Child to them. On August 17, 2016, 

Scisney filed a motion to contest the appointment of guardianship. On August 

25, 2016, Scisney filed a counter-petition requesting that the court appoint him 

as the permanent guardian of Child. 

[3] On December 5, 2016, the court held a hearing at which it admitted into 

evidence the GAL’s report and other documentary evidence and heard 

testimony from Scisney, the Adamses, the GAL, and Devante Connor, the 

putative father of the Children, among others. On June 13, 2017, after Scisney 

filed a motion to produce order, the court issued an order naming the Adamses

as the guardians of Child. The order provides: 

3. Kimberly Scisney is the biological mother of [the Children].

4. Devonte Connor is the alleged father but has never filed to 

establish paternity. 

5. Kimberly Scisney was killed in an automobile accident a few 

months after giving birth to the twins. 

6. Saleem and Tamara Adams belonged to the same church that 

Kimberly Scisney attended. 

7. Kimberly Scisney approached Saleem and Tamara Adams 

about taking care of her children shortly before she died in a car 

accident. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 4 of 14

8. Kimberly Scisney turned the twins over to Saleem and 

Tamara Adams on March 20, 2016 along with health care and 

personal power[s] of attorney[] so they could obtain medical 

attention for the children.

9. The alleged father, Devonte Conner [sic], also signed the 

aforementioned power[s] of attorney[] even though he had not 

established paternity.

10. Counter/Petitioner, Glenn [sic] Scisney, is the biological 

maternal grandfather of the minor twins and filed his 

Counter/Petition on August 25, 2016.

11. Glenn Scisney resides in Madisonville, KY with his present 

wife . . . and two children . . . . 

12. The Court appointed Kids’ Voice of Indiana as Guardian ad 

Litem of the minor twins . . . .

13. The Guardian ad Litem interviewed the petitioners and 

many other relatives and non-relatives and submitted its’ [sic] 

report to the Court on June 20, 2016. 

14. Saleem and Tamara Adams are both employed and Tamara 

Adams works from home which allows her to care for [the 

Children] at the same time.

15. Tamara Adams testified that they now live in a home with 

3290 square feet and five bedrooms. 

16. Both of the twins suffer from medical conditions that the 

Adams[es] have monitored and taken them to doctors visits. 

[A.E.S.] has been diagnosed with sickle cell anemia and [Child] 

with tracheomalacia and laryngomalacia. 

17. Saleem and Tamara Adams have not been convicted of a 

felony. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 5 of 14

18. Testimony was given that the reason the mother, Kimberly 

Scisney, did not want [Scisney] to have custody of the minor 

twins is that he had been very abusive to her.

19. Glenn Scisney is the biological grandfather of [the Children]. 

20. Glenn Scisney testified that he is employed and has two part 

time jobs one of which is in Indianapolis. 

21. Glenn Scisney also testified that he is building an addition to 

his home to accommodate his grandsons. 

22. Glenn Scisney has not had much contact with the twins and 

testified that the reason for that is the Adams[es] refused to let 

him have visitation. The report of the Guardian ad Litem 

confirms that the Adams[es] refused to allow Glenn Scisney 

visitation based on the allegations of Kimberly Scisney of his 

abusive actions against her. 

23. As mentioned above the Guardian ad Litem interviewed the 

parties to this matter and also other relatives and non-relatives 

and submitted its recommendation to the Court in its report 

dated June 20, 2016. 

24. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the Court 

grants guardianship of the [Children], to Saleem and Tamara 

Adams. 

25. The Court also orders Saleem and Tamara Adams to allow 

visitation to Glenn Scisney based on their schedules. 

26. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED, that Saleem and Tamara Adams, Petitioners, are 

hereby appointed Guardians of the Person of [A.E.S.] and 

[Child], and the Clerk is directed to issue Letters of Guardianship 

to Saleem and Tamara Adams upon subscribing an Oath. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 6 of 14

Appellant’s Appendix Volume 2 at 15-17. Scisney filed a motion to correct 

error, which the trial court denied. 

Discussion

[4] The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in naming the Adamses

as guardians of Child. The trial court is vested with discretion in making 

determinations as to the guardianship of an incapacitated person or minor. In 

re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d 343, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). This 

discretion extends to both its findings and its order. Id. We apply the abuse of 

discretion standard to review the trial court’s findings and order. Id. Because 

the court set forth findings, we look to those findings to determine whether the 

court abused its discretion. See id. The findings will not be set aside unless 

clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any 

facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. Further, we will not set 

aside the judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly 

erroneous when unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions thereon. 

Id. 

[5] Scisney asserts the court’s findings are not supported by the evidence, that the 

court abused its discretion in finding that the Adamses were the most suitable 

persons to be guardians of Child, that he is the most stable party in this matter 

and the most suitable person to be named guardian of Child, and that it would 

be in Child’s best interest for him to be named guardian. He argues that he 

requested the power of attorney documents but never received them, those 

documents were not offered into evidence, and the finding in paragraph 8 of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 7 of 14

trial court’s order is not supported by evidence. He argues that the evidence 

does not support the court’s finding in paragraph 18 and that, if these findings

were to be set aside, the remaining evidence most favorable to the Adamses

would not support the court’s determination. He also asserts the evidence does 

not support the findings in paragraphs 7 and 14 of the court’s order. Scisney 

further argues that he is clearly the most suitable party to be named guardian 

over his own grandchild. In support of his argument, he points to his housing 

and room for Child, the length of his marriage and residence in his house, the 

fact an elementary school is located approximately one-quarter of a mile from 

his home, his employment teaching autistic children part time, and that he is 

the only relative who has petitioned to be appointed guardian. He also argues 

that the Adamses deceived Child’s family and friends by posting fake crowdsourcing websites to raise money in the name of Child, have an unstable 

income, and were evicted during the proceedings in this case. 

[6] The Adamses maintain that the trial court did not err in naming them as the 

guardians of Child and correctly determined they were suitable persons to be 

appointed under Ind. Code § 29-3-5-4(2). They argue the court was not 

required to enter special findings and that the evidence supports the court’s 

findings. They assert that the GAL’s report was admitted into evidence, 

contained a copy of the power of attorney executed by Mother and Connor, 

and included information gathered from family members of Mother which 

substantiate the claim that Mother desired for Child to be in their custody. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 8 of 14

Adamses also maintain that Scisney’s argument is simply a request to reweigh 

the evidence and reassess the credibility of the witnesses. 

[7] The guardianship statutes provide for the appointment of guardians for minors. 

See Ind. Code § 29-3-5-1. Ind. Code §§ 29-3-5 set forth proceedings for the 

appointment of a guardian, and Ind. Code § 29-3-5-3 provides that, if it is 

alleged and the court finds that the individual for whom the guardian is sought 

is an incapacitated person or a minor and the appointment of a guardian is 

necessary as a means of providing care and supervision of the physical person 

or property of the incapacitated person or minor, the court shall appoint a 

guardian under the chapter. 

[8] At the time of the December 2016 hearing, Ind. Code § 29-3-5-4 provided: 

The court shall appoint as guardian a qualified person or persons 

most suitable and willing to serve, having due regard to the 

following:

(1) Any request made by a person alleged to be an 

incapacitated person, including designations in a 

durable power of attorney under IC 30-5-3-4(a).

(2) Any request contained in a will or other written 

instrument.

(3) A designation of a standby guardian under IC 29-3-

3-7.

(4) Any request made by a minor who is at least 

fourteen (14) years of age.

(5) Any request made by the spouse of the alleged 

incapacitated person.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 9 of 14

(6) The relationship of the proposed guardian to the 

individual for whom guardianship is sought.

(7) Any person acting for the incapacitated person 

under a durable power of attorney.

(8) The best interest of the incapacitated person or 

minor and the property of the incapacitated person 

or minor.

(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 194-2017, § 7 (eff. Jul. 1, 2017)).2 

[9] Ind. Code § 29-3-5-5 provided: 

(a) The following are entitled to consideration for 

appointment as a guardian under section 4 of this chapter 

in the order listed:

(1) A person designated in a durable power of attorney.

(2) A person designated as a standby guardian under IC 

29-3-3-7.

(3) The spouse of an incapacitated person.

(4) An adult child of an incapacitated person.

(5) A parent of an incapacitated person, or a person 

nominated by will of a deceased parent of an 

incapacitated person or by any writing signed by a 

parent of an incapacitated person and attested to by 

at least two (2) witnesses.

 

2 The 2017 amendment inserted a new subsection (2) and redesignated former subsections (2) to (8) as 

subsections (3) to (9). The new subsection (2) provides: “(2) Any request made for a minor by: (A) a parent 

of the minor; or (B) a de facto custodian of the minor, including a designation in a power of attorney under 

IC 30-5-3-4(b) or IC 30-5-3-4(c).” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 10 of 14

(6) Any person related to an incapacitated person by 

blood or marriage with whom the incapacitated 

person has resided for more than six (6) months 

before the filing of the petition.

(7) A person nominated by the incapacitated person 

who is caring for or paying for the care of the 

incapacitated person.

(b) With respect to persons having equal priority, the court 

shall select the person it considers best qualified to serve as 

guardian. The court, acting in the best interest of the 

incapacitated person or minor, may pass over a person 

having priority and appoint a person having a lower 

priority or no priority under this section.

(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 194-2017, § 8 (eff. Jul. 1, 2017)). 

[10] The court, pursuant to Ind. Code § 29-3-5-4, must give due regard to the best 

interest of a minor and, acting in the best interest of the minor, may pass over a 

person having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no 

priority under Ind. Code § 29-3-5-5. In re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d at 

353. The key consideration, in essence, in selecting a guardian for Child is 

whether the choice of guardian is in Child’s best interest. See id. 

[11] To the extent Scisney contests the trial court’s findings in paragraphs 7, 8, 14

and 18 of its June 13, 2017 order, we observe that Tamara testified that the 

Children had come into her care and custody on March 20, 2016, and that 

Mother had contacted her and Saleem shortly after the Children were born. 

The GAL’s report indicated that Mother was overwhelmed with the idea of 

single parenthood prior to the birth of the Children, that she attended the same 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 11 of 14

church as the Adamses, and that she had approached the Adamses as potential 

persons who might adopt the Children. We further observe that the GAL’s

report stated that, “[t]o ensure that they had the full ability to the extent 

reasonably necessary to provide all the care that might be necessary in the short 

time that they were supposed to have the children, the Adams[es] requested that 

they be given power of attorney for the children and health power of attorney” 

and “[t]hey received and kept the executed documents (which were also signed 

by the putative father, despite his legal claim as a father/parent being tenuous, 

if not nonexistent), and the GAL reviewed these during the home visit.” 

Guardian Ad Litem Exhibit I at 5. The GAL’s report included attached

executed documents including a power of attorney and health powers of 

attorney dated in March 2016 and signed by Mother which granted attorney-infact powers to the Adams[es] to act on behalf of Child.

3

 Tamara testified that 

she works from home using a customer service system and phone, that she has 

the ability to care for the Children while working, and that her office is in the 

room where the Children take their naps, and Saleem indicated he is employed 

as a customer service agent for a company which provides tax return 

preparation assistance. 

[12] Further, the GAL’s report indicated that Roberta Edwards, the Children’s

maternal grandmother, stated that she was somewhat surprised and upset that 

her daughter had not considered her for guardianship but instead went straight 

 

3 The Power of Attorney for Child instrument was also signed by Connor. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 12 of 14

to the Adamses, that in any event she could not accept care or custody of the 

Children, that she was of the opinion that Scisney has been verbally abusive to 

Mother, that she had observed Mother crying and upset after speaking with 

Scisney on the phone a few times, that Mother had unequivocally expressed a 

desire for the Adamses to have and hopefully adopt the Children, and that they 

allowed her and any of her extended family to see the Children. The report also 

indicated that Crista Spiller, Mother’s cousin, stated that Scisney “was the last 

person to find out from [Mother] about the pregnancy and that [Mother] had 

stated to her that [Scisney] was the very last person on earth that she would 

want to have her children” and that “[s]he recalled that [Scisney] had told 

[Mother] he would disown her if she ever got pregnant, and that he did in fact 

do so when he found out.” Id. at 9-10. The report further indicated that 

Scisney stated he had counseled his daughter not to become pregnant out of 

wedlock and having such “bastards” would be wrong and greatly disappoint

him, that Mother would become upset at this fatherly advice, and that in no 

way was the interaction ever abusive or less than fatherly or loving. Id. at 12. 

The GAL’s report, in its summary, indicated that it was widely acknowledged 

that Mother desired that the Children be placed with the Adamses. We cannot 

say that the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support the 

court’s findings in paragraphs 7, 8, 14 and 18 of its order. 

[13] The record further reveals that the court admitted documentary evidence and 

testimony related to the suitability of the Adamses and Scisney as guardians 

and the considerations set forth in Ind. Code §§ 29-3-5-4 and -5. The court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 13 of 14

admitted evidence regarding the parties’ financial resources, employment and 

earnings, and the stability of those resources and earnings. It also heard

testimony regarding the Adamses’ care of the Children, the health histories of 

the Children, the history and stability of the Adamses’ housing, and that Go 

Fund Me funds were established to solicit donations for the Children and 

Mother.

4

 The court also heard testimony regarding Scisney’s home and room 

for the Children, his marriage and children, his proximity to an elementary 

school, and his work with children and other work. The reports regarding 

Mother’s relationship with Scisney and her desire for the Children to be placed 

with the Adamses were also before the court. Mother and Connor executed a 

Power of Attorney for Child in favor of the Adamses with respect to the care of 

Child on March 28, 2016. The court was able to review and consider the 

evidence, including the evidence related to the parties’ resources and families 

and to Mother’s wishes, in exercising its discretion in determining the most 

suitable persons to be appointed as the guardians of Child under the 

circumstances. Scisney has not shown that the trial court’s findings are not 

supported by the record or that the court’s judgment is not supported by its 

findings. 

 

4 The GAL’s report attached copies of a Go Fund Me webpage indicating that $300 had been raised for 

Children and a similar page indicating that $135 had been raised for Mother. The Go Fund Me page for 

Mother indicates it was established or sponsored by Edwards, and the GAL testified that the Adamses

indicated that the funds were transferred to their personal account. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 14 of 14

[14] Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the December 5, 2016 

hearing, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in 

appointing the Adamses as the guardians of Child. 

Conclusion

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court naming the 

Adamses as guardians of Child. 

[16] Affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.