Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1705-AD-1123 | November 16, 2017 Page 1 of 4

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

Jill A. Gonzalez

Muncie, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Ryan H. Cassman 

Brandi A. Gibson

Coots, Henke & Wheeler, P.C.

Carmel, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re: Adoption of R.J.B. and 

S.B.B.,

C.B.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Z.C.,

Appellee-Petitioner. 

November 16, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

29A02-1705-AD-1123

Appeal from the Hamilton 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Steven R. Nation, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29D01-1602-AD-191

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1705-AD-1123 | November 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary 

[1] Appellee-Petitioner Z.C. (“Stepfather”) is married to M.C. (“Mother”). In 

early 2016, he petitioned to adopt her children R.J.B. and S.B.B. in Hamilton 

County, Indiana. Appellant-Respondent C.B. (“Father”), the biological father 

of the children, contested the adoption. Approximately two months later, 

Father also filed an objection to venue in Hamilton County. The trial court 

denied Father’s objection. 

[2] Father argues that the trial court erred in denying his objection to venue in 

Hamilton County. Because Father did not raise the claim before contesting the 

adoption and it was not raised as an affirmative defense, the issue is waived. 

Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[3] On February 10, 2016, Stepfather and Mother filed a petition for adoption and 

notice of adoption in Hamilton County. Father received notice of the adoption 

petition on February 17, 2016. On March 4, 2016, Father contested adoption in 

Hamilton County. On May 2, 2016, Father filed his objection to venue in 

Hamilton County. In his motion, Father alleged that Hancock County was the 

proper venue for the adoption. 

[4] On June 8, 2016, the trial court issued its order denying Father’s objection to 

venue in Hamilton County. In the months that followed, the trial court also 

denied two motions to reconsider. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1705-AD-1123 | November 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4

[5] On February 2, 2017, the trial court held a hearing on the contested adoption. 

On March 8, 2017, the trial court issued its finding of fact, conclusions of law, 

and judgment. Among other things, the trial court granted the adoption 

petition. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] The only issue Father raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it 

denied Father’s objection to venue in Hamilton County. This court reviews the 

“grant or denial of a Trial Rule 12(B)(3) motion based upon improper venue 

under Trial Rule 75 for an abuse of discretion.” Shanklin v. Shireman, 659 

N.E.2d 640, 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). An abuse of discretion may occur when 

the trial court’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances before the court, or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law.” 

McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., 605 N.E.2d 175, 180 (Ind. 1993).

[7] “The question of improper venue must be raised by motion or by affirmative 

defense. If made by motion, it must be made prior to the filing of a pleading. If 

not, it must be raised as an affirmative defense. If not so raised, the issue is 

waived.” Sanson v. Sanson, 466 N.E.2d 770, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). Father 

filed no motion to dismiss on those grounds prior to filing his motion to contest

adoption, and his motion contained no affirmative defense alleging improper 

venue. Consequently, Father has waived the claim. 

[8] We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1705-AD-1123 | November 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4

May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.