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 APPELLANTS: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:

JOHNNY W. ULMER DEBRA VOLTZ-MILLER

Cataldo Law Offices, Inc. Debra Voltz-Miller & Associates

Bristol, Indiana South Bend, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

D.P. and G.P., )

)

Appellants, )

)

vs. ) No. 71A05-1210-MI-618

)

J.H. and T.H., )

)

Appellees. )

APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH PROBATE COURT

The Honorable Peter J. Nemeth, Judge

Cause No. 71J01-1207-MI-2

May 28, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge
2

D.P. and G.P. (together, “Grandparents”), the biological grandparents of J.P., 

appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to correct error. Grandparents raise several 

issues, and we revise and restate the issues on appeal as: 

I. Whether Grandparents may challenge the trial court’s order granting 

the petition for adoption of J.P. by foster parents J.H. and T.H. 

(together, “Foster Parents”); and 

II. Whether the trial court erred in ordering Grandparents to pay $2,000 

in attorney fees. 

Foster Parents request appellate attorney fees pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E). We 

decline to address Grandparents’ arguments related to the adoption of J.P. by Foster 

Parents, remand for a new hearing on Foster Parents’ request for fees and costs, and deny 

Foster Parents’ request for appellate attorney fees.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

In March 2009, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed J.P., who was 

born on November 6, 2007, from his biological parents based on concerns of the living 

conditions and J.P.’s physical condition and later placed J.P. with Foster Parents.

1

 On 

petition by DCS, the court declared J.P. a child in need of services (“CHINS”) and 

adopted a plan for reunification with the child’s biological parents. 

On July 12, 2010, DCS filed petitions for the involuntary termination of parental 

rights to J.P. On October 8, 2010, Grandparents filed a petition to adopt J.P. On October 

 

1

Portions of the facts and procedural history are taken from this court’s previous memorandum 

opinion in In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship and Adoption of J.P., No. 

71A03-1106-JT-248 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2012) (appeal from cause numbers 71J01-1006-JT-154 

(“Cause No. 154”), 71J01-1009-AD-115 (“Cause No. 115”) (adoption petition by Foster Parents), 71J01-

1010-AD-129 (“Cause No. 129”) (adoption petition by Grandparents), and 71J01-0903-JC-277 (“Cause 

No. 277”)), trans. denied. The record does not include copies of the trial court’s chronological case 

summaries for Cause Nos. 154, 115, 129, and 277. 
3

14, 2010, Foster Parents filed a petition to adopt J.P. A three-day hearing regarding the 

termination and adoption proceedings was held on February 17, March 11, and March 18, 

2011. On May 11, 2011, the trial court terminated the parental rights of J.P.’s biological 

parents, denied Grandparents’ petition to adopt J.P., and stated its intent to grant Foster 

Parents’ petition to adopt J.P. pending a final hearing. Grandparents and J.P.’s biological 

parents appealed. 

On March 16, 2012, this court issued an opinion which held that the trial court did 

not err in terminating the parental rights of J.P.’s biological parents. See In the Matter of 

the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship and Adoption of J.P., No. 71A03-1106-

JT-248, slip op. at 16 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2012), trans. denied. With respect to the 

adoption petition by Grandparents under Cause No. 129, this court noted that the trial

court found that J.P. had not bonded with Grandparents, that Parents believed that the 

adoption by Grandparents would allow them to maintain contact with the child, that DCS 

did not consent to the adoption of the child by Grandparents, that in May 2009 

Grandparents requested custody of J.P. and Parents did not want J.P. placed with 

Grandparents because they did not get along with them, and that J.P. had a muted, 

reserved relationship with Grandparents. Id. at 17. We reviewed the record and held, 

considering the facts most favorable to the trial court’s decision, that the evidence 

supported the decision that the adoption of J.P. by Grandparents was not in J.P.’s best 

interests, and we affirmed the court’s decision to deny Grandparents’ petition for 

adoption. Id. at 18-19. 
4

With respect to the adoption petition filed by Foster Parents under Cause No. 115, 

we noted that the trial court concluded that the adoption of J.P. by Foster Parents was in 

the best interests of the child and that Foster Parents’ petition for adoption would be 

granted subject to a final hearing. Id. at 19. We found that the trial court’s decision to 

delay its decision on Foster Parents’ adoption did not dispose of that claim, and we 

dismissed that portion of the appeal regarding Foster Parents’ adoption petition because it 

was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. Id. at 19-22. 

Grandparents filed a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was denied 

on June 29, 2012. 

On April 13, 2012, DCS filed a Petition for Release of Wardship under Cause No. 

277 which informed the trial court that the child’s case plan was adoption, that a final 

adoption hearing was to be held that day, that the child’s parents had no rights regarding 

the child as those rights were terminated pursuant to the court’s order, and that Foster 

Parents had filed a petition for adoption to which DCS has consented, and DCS 

recommended that J.P. be released from supervision. On April 18, 2012, the trial court 

entered an Order Terminating Jurisdiction in which it stated that, after reviewing the 

progress report and hearing evidence and statements of interested persons, it found that 

the child’s custodians complied with the child’s case plan and that the court’s jurisdiction 

was terminated. 

On May 17, 2012, Grandparents filed a notice of appeal with the trial court with 

respect to the April 18, 2012 order.

2

 The notice of appeal listed Cause Nos. 115, 129, and 

 

2 The notice of appeal in the appellant’s appendix is not file-stamped but the certificate of service 

includes a date of May 17, 2012. The notice of appeal indicates that the appeal was taken from an order 
5

277 in the caption. The trial court sent a letter dated May 25, 2012, to counsel for 

Grandparents indicating that this court had affirmed the decision of the trial court under 

Cause No. 129 and that the parental rights of J.P.’s biological parents were terminated. 

The letter further noted, as to Cause No. 277, that the case was closed since the child had 

been adopted, that the court was “not clear as to exactly what it is that [Grandparents] 

wish[ed] to appeal,” and that the court would take no further action unless it was 

provided “with some legal authority to justify [] processing [the] notice of appeal.” 

Appellant’s Appendix at 13. 

On July 20, 2012, the court held a hearing.

3

 At the hearing, the court noted that 

Grandparents were not parties to the case involving Foster Parents’ petition for adoption, 

Grandparents’ counsel stated that the cases had been consolidated, the court observed that 

Grandparents’ petition was denied and affirmed on appeal, counsel for Foster Parents

noted that counsel for Grandparents did not appear in the Foster Parents’ case, and the 

court noted that Grandparents did not file a motion to contest the adoption by Foster 

Parents. Grandparents’ counsel argued that Grandparents were asking for an opportunity 

to appeal the final order in Foster Parents’ case, that counsel had been locked out of the 

Quest system with respect to Foster Parents’ case, and that Grandparents were denied due 

process. Counsel for DCS stated that the trial court never consolidated the various cases 

under one cause number, that the cases were heard on one day and thus it may seem as 

though they were consolidated although they were not, that this court consolidated the 

 

“believed to have been entered on or about April 18, 2012,” and that counsel had not been “able to access 

any of the case numbers . . . although he is listed as attorney of record as the cases have been sealed, nor 

was he notified of any hearing in a timely manner so he could appear.” Appellants’ Appendix at 15. 

3 A copy of the transcript of this hearing is included in the appellants’ appendix. 
6

cases for purposes of appeal only, and that separate orders had been entered in each of the 

different cases. The court stated its opinion that Grandparents were not entitled to an 

appeal from the judgment in Foster Parents’ adoption action but that it would open a 

miscellaneous cause number, later assigned cause number 71J01-1207-MI-2 (“Cause No. 

2”), from which this appeal arises, and “issue an order file marking” Grandparents’ notice 

of appeal so that they could seek guidance from this court regarding their right to appeal 

if they chose to do so. Id. at 34. 

On July 24, 2012, under Cause No. 2, the court issued an order stating that it had 

received a notice of appeal on May 17, 2012, and noted that it did not believe that 

Grandparents had any standing to appeal in part because they had their day in court as to 

their petition for adoption and they never appeared in the Foster Parents’ adoption case 

nor filed a motion to contest that adoption. The court noted that it deemed it 

inappropriate to re-open the Foster Parents’ adoption case and had opened Cause No. 2. 

The court concluded that Grandparents have no standing to appeal any of the cases listed 

on their May 17, 2012 notice of appeal. 

On July 31, 2012, Foster Parents filed a Motion to Tax Fees and Costs and a 

memorandum of law in support of the motion. The motion requested an order requiring 

Grandparents to pay Foster Parents’ attorney fees in defending unjustified litigation 

pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1. In its memorandum, Foster Parents argued that 

Grandparents’ attempt to appeal the order granting the petition for adoption of J.P. by 

Foster Parents is simply continued harassment of Foster Parents and devoid of any 

rational legal basis and that Grandparents never had standing to contest Foster Parents’
7

petition for adoption. Foster Parents also argued that Grandparents filed their action in 

bad faith and showed a deliberate disregard of established law and a deliberate attempt to 

contravene the rulings of the trial court. On August 10, 2012, the court held a hearing on 

Foster Parents’ motion.4 On August 16, 2012, the court entered an order granting Foster 

Parents’ Motion to Tax Fees and Costs and awarded Foster Parents attorney fees in the 

amount of $2,000.

On September 10, 2012, Grandparents filed a Verified Petition for Change of 

Venue of Judge for Cause arguing that Judge Peter Nemeth made comments from the 

bench on July 20, 2012 giving the impression that he had a personal bias and prejudice 

against Grandparents and their counsel. 

On September 17, 2012, Grandparents filed a Verified Motion to Set Aside 

Judgment and Motion to Correct Error requesting the court to set aside its August 16, 

2012 order. In the motion, Grandparents noted that no appeal was taken after the May 

17, 2012 notice of appeal was filed, that the court had sua sponte scheduled the July 20, 

2012 hearing, and that neither the trial nor appellate rules required or authorized such a 

hearing. Grandparents argued that the trial court did not issue any findings of fact, made 

no legal conclusions, and had no billing to use to support the amount awarded. On 

October 11, 2012, the court held a hearing on Grandparents’ petition and motion at which 

the parties presented arguments. On October 11, 2012, the court entered an order 

denying Grandparents’ petition for change of judge and motion to correct error. 

Grandparents now appeal the October 11, 2012 order. 

 

4 The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing. 
8

DISCUSSION

I.

We first address whether Grandparents may challenge the order granting Foster 

Parents’ petition for adoption. Grandparents argue the trial court did not have jurisdiction 

when it granted Foster Parents’ petition for adoption and that the court denied them due 

process by locking them out of the Quest system. Foster Parents maintain that the 

adoption of J.P. by Foster Parents is final and not subject to re-litigation. Foster Parents 

argue that the granting of the finalization of the adoption by Foster Parents was entirely 

independent of the denial of Grandparents’ petition for adoption, that Grandparents did 

not have standing to contest the adoption, and that, after the July 24, 2012 order in which 

Grandparents were given the opportunity to request an appeal, they chose not to do so. 

We note that this court’s March 16, 2012 memorandum opinion affirmed the 

termination of the parental rights of J.P.’s biological parents and the trial court’s decision 

to deny Grandparents’ petition for adoption of J.P. In addition, this court dismissed the 

appeal under Cause No. 115 related to Foster Parents’ adoption petition as there had not 

been a final judgment in that matter. Grandparents do not dispute that they did not 

appear in Cause No. 115 and did not file a motion to contest the adoption by Foster 

Parents. The trial court entered an Order Terminating Jurisdiction upon motion by DCS 

under Cause No. 277 on April 18, 2012, and Grandparents filed a notice of appeal on 

May 17, 2012, with respect to that order. Following a hearing on July 20, 2012, the court 

issued an Order Regarding Notice of Appeal on July 24, 2012, noting that Grandparents 

never appeared in the Foster Parents’ adoption case or filed a motion to contest that 
9

adoption and concluding that Grandparents had no standing to appeal. Grandparents did 

not timely file a motion to correct error or a notice of appeal with respect to the trial 

court’s July 24, 2012 order and do not assert that they pursued any appeal or sought any 

guidance from this court related to their right or ability to do so following the order. 

Subsequently, on August 16, 2012, the trial court ruled on Foster Parents’ Motion 

to Tax Fees and Costs. On September 17, 2012, Grandparents filed a motion to set aside 

judgment and to correct error with respect to the August 16, 2012 order, and on October 

11, 2012, the trial court denied Grandparents’ motion. Grandparents filed a notice of 

appeal on October 11, 2012, with respect to the trial court’s October 11, 2012 order. The 

October 11, 2012 notice of appeal and the trial court’s October 11, 2012 and August 16, 

2012 orders relate to Foster Parents’ Motion to Tax Fees and Costs and not to the trial 

court’s July 24, 2012 order or other orders related to the adoption petition by Foster 

Parents. Even had Grandparents October 11, 2012 notice of appeal identified the trial 

court’s orders on or before July 24, 2012, as the appealed orders, such a notice of appeal 

would have been untimely filed as to those orders. See Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) (“A 

party initiates an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk . . . within thirty (30) 

days after the entry of a Final Judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary . . . 

.”); Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(5) (“Unless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed, the right to 

appeal shall be forfeited. . . .”). We decline to address the arguments of Grandparents in 

their briefs on appeal related to Foster Parents’ adoption of J.P. Based upon the record,

we do not disturb the grant of the petition for adoption of J.P. by Foster Parents. 
10

II.

The next issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering Grandparents to pay 

$2,000 in attorney fees. Grandparents argue the court abused its discretion in granting 

the award and that the court made no findings or conclusions and had no billing to use to 

support the amount awarded. Foster Parents maintain the award was justified due to 

Grandparents’ continued unreasonable litigation. 

Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b), provides in part: 

In any civil action, the court may award attorney’s fees as part of the cost to 

the prevailing party, if the court finds that either party:

(1) brought the action or defense on a claim or defense 

that is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless;

(2) continued to litigate the action or defense after the 

party’s claim or defense clearly became frivolous, 

unreasonable, or groundless; or

(3) litigated the action in bad faith.

An award of attorney fees under Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1 is afforded a multi-step 

review. Knowledge A-Z, Inc. v. Sentry Ins., 857 N.E.2d 411, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

(citing Emergency Physicians of Indianapolis v. Pettit, 714 N.E.2d 1111, 1115 (Ind. Ct.

App. 1999), adopted in relevant part by 718 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. 1999)), reh’g denied, trans.

denied. First, we review the trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous 

standard, and second, we review de novo the trial court’s legal conclusions. Id. Finally, 

we review the trial court’s decision to award attorney’s fees and the amount thereof under 

an abuse of discretion standard. Id. Here, in its August 16, 2012 Order on Motion to Tax 

Fees and Costs, the trial court did not enter findings. The trial court did not expressly 
11

indicate the legal conclusion on which its award of attorney fees was based. We view the 

trial court’s order as an implicit conclusion that Grandparents’ motions were frivolous, 

unreasonable, and groundless or in bad faith. We review this conclusion de novo. See id.

423-424. 

For purposes of awarding attorney fees under Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1, a claim is 

frivolous if it is made primarily to harass or maliciously injure another, if counsel is 

unable to make a good faith and rational argument on the merits of the claim, or if 

counsel is unable to support the action by a good faith and rational argument for 

extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Id. at 424. A claim is unreasonable 

if, based upon the totality of the circumstances, including the law and facts known at the 

time of filing the claim, no reasonable attorney would consider the claim justified or 

worthy of litigation. Id. A claim is groundless if no facts exist which support the legal 

claim relied upon and presented by the losing party. Id. Finally, a claim is litigated in 

bad faith if the party presenting the claim is affirmatively operating with furtive design or 

ill will. Id. 

In addition to the fact that the trial court did not enter findings in its August 16, 

2012 order or indicate the basis upon which it awarded $2,000 in attorney fees, we 

observe that the record does not include a transcript of the August 10, 2012 hearing on 

Foster Parents’ Motion to Tax Fees and Costs. Further, Foster Parents’ motion did not 

include or attach an affidavit or invoice of Foster Parents’ counsel setting forth the 

attorney fees and other costs which they purportedly incurred. Although an affidavit of 

Foster Parents’ counsel together with an attached letter to Grandparents’ counsel dated 
12

August 27, 2012, and an invoice statement dated August 27, 2012, were included in 

Foster Parents’ appellees’ brief, those documents were generated after the August 10, 

2012 hearing and the court’s August 16, 2012 order granting Foster Parents’ Motion to 

Tax Fees and Costs. In fact, the items were filed with the court after the October 11, 

2012 hearing on Grandparents’ motion to correct error. 

We also observe that, at the October 11, 2012 hearing, counsel for Grandparents 

argued that the court erred in awarding fees to Foster Parents and contested the amount of 

the fees. From our reading of the hearing transcript, it appears that Judge Nemeth, 

repeatedly and rather emphatically, challenged the arguments of Grandparents’ counsel 

that Grandparents’ claims at the July 20, 2012 hearing, made by Grandparents’ previous 

counsel, were not frivolous. We note that the fact that a party makes an argument which 

is not ultimately persuasive or for which there is little existing authority, taken alone,

does not necessarily mean that the party’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or 

groundless. Near the end of the hearing, the following exchange occurred regarding the 

amount of the attorney fees: 

THE COURT: I guess the only question the Court has is the 

amount of the fees. Does it require that you 

submit an hourly – Did you do that? 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: Your Honor, I’ve provided that to 

[Grandparents’ Counsel].

[Grandparents’ Counsel]: Right, at my request on the date we had the 

hearing. I was here present on that date, Your 

Honor, and she just told the Court and the Court 

granted it. 
13

THE COURT: I think for purposes of appeal, I think the 

appellate court probably would require that 

there be some showing. 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: Specific fee application, certainly, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And I think that that’s the issue that I would 

feel is still an open issue obviously. The Court 

issued an Order in this case with findings and –

* * * * *

I think that [Foster Parents’ Counsel] needs to 

file with the Court the hourly record for that and 

I think you said you’ve already provided that to 

counsel? 

[Grandparents’ Counsel]: Yes, she has. 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: I have. 

THE COURT: Well, maybe we could have another hearing. 

What is it about that that you feel is 

unreasonable? 

[Grandparents’ Counsel]: The amount that counsel was granted. At the 

hearing there was no itemized listing as far as 

what she was seeking and she just asked for –

THE COURT: I understand that. Now, she has submitted to 

you the itemized list. If you have an objection 

to it, if you want to wait and come back again, 

that’s fine. I’d be happy to do that. I’m here 

until the end of the year, so I can certainly hear 

it at another time, but I thought I would save . . . 

you the trouble. If there’s an argument you 

want to make as to the amount? 

[Grandparents’ Counsel]: Not at this time, Your Honor. I would like to 

have this rescheduled to come back because I 

want to look at that and I want to look at some 

other matters, but she was kind enough to 

submit to me her itemized list. I did not bring 

that with me today. I want to look it over, so I 
14

can make a reasonable argument to the Court 

for your determination. 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: Your Honor, he’s had since about August 27 to 

look it over. I have provided [Grandparents’ 

Counsel] with an itemized, to the minute listing 

of my fees, which at that point in time totaled 

$2,986.70. Setting another hearing is incurring 

additional fees for my client, so I’m not really 

certain –

THE COURT: What did I order; two thousand? 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: Two thousand, yes. 

THE COURT: . . . Has that been filed with the court? 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: It has not. I certainly can. 

THE COURT: Alright. If you wish to file that, file it. I don’t 

really see any reason, [Grandparents’ Counsel], 

to have a hearing in this case. The order will 

stand. The Motion to Correct Error is denied. 

If on appeal this matter gets reversed, comes 

back here, I doubt very much that I will be here, 

so I think the Motion for Change, I won’t delay 

any ruling on because I don’t think there’s any 

basis for it. . . . [I]f for some reason the 

Appellate Court sees whatever point you’ve 

been trying to make, they will reverse and send 

it back and someone else will be hearing it. 

[Grandparents’ Counsel]: Thank you, Your Honor. 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: Thank you. 

THE COURT: So ordered. You will get that on file? 

[Foster Parents’ Counsel]: I will just file it with a notice to the court, if 

that’s okay. 

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. 
15

Transcript at 13-16. An entry in the court’s chronological case summary (“CCS”) on 

October 12, 2012 indicates that Foster Parents’ counsel filed an “Affidavit As Requested 

By The Court.” Appellant’s Appendix at 3. 

Because the trial court failed to indicate the basis upon which it awarded $2,000, 

to review evidence related to an appropriate amount of attorney fees, or to identify any 

factors which may bear on the reasonableness of the award, we remand to the trial court 

to hold a new hearing on Foster Parents’ Motion to Tax Fees and Costs.5 

III.

The next issue is whether Foster Parents are entitled to appellate attorney fees. 

Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E) provides that this court “may assess damages if an appeal, 

petition, or motion, or response, is frivolous or in bad faith. Damages shall be in the 

Court’s discretion and may include attorneys’ fees.” Our discretion to award attorney 

fees is limited to instances when an appeal is “permeated with meritlessness, bad faith, 

frivolity, harassment, vexatiousness, or purpose of delay.” Orr v. Turco Mfg. Co., Inc., 

512 N.E.2d 151, 152 (Ind. 1987). An appellate tribunal must use extreme restraint in 

exercising its discretionary power to award damages on appeal “because of the potential 

chilling effect upon the exercise of the right to appeal.” Tioga Pines Living Ctr., Inc. v. 

Ind. Family & Social Serv. Admin., 760 N.E.2d 1080, 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), 

affirmed on reh’g, trans. denied. Indiana appellate courts have classified claims for 

appellate attorneys’ fees into substantive and procedural bad faith claims. Thacker v. 

Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Boczar v. Meridian St. 

 

5 Grandparents also argue that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for 

change of judge. We need not reach this issue as we remand for a new hearing on Foster Parents’ Motion 

to Tax Fees and Costs and the hearing will be heard by a different trial court judge. 
16

Found., 749 N.E.2d 87, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). To prevail on a substantive bad faith 

claim, the party must show that “the appellant’s contentions and arguments are utterly 

devoid of all plausibility.” Id. Procedural bad faith, on the other hand, occurs when a 

party flagrantly disregards the form and content requirements of the rules of appellate 

procedure, omits and misstates relevant facts appearing in the record, and files briefs 

written in a manner calculated to require the maximum expenditure of time both by the 

opposing party and the reviewing court. Id. at 346-347. 

While we find Grandparents’ arguments regarding the trial court’s grant of Foster 

Parents’ petition for adoption and their ability to appeal the court’s orders on that matter 

to be untimely and unpersuasive, we find merit to Grandparents’ argument regarding the 

court’s attorney fee award and remand for a new hearing on Foster Parents’ Motion to 

Tax Fees and Costs. Grandparents’ contentions on this issue were thus not utterly devoid 

of all plausibility. We deny Foster Parents’ request for appellate attorney fees. See

Taflinger Farm v. Uhl, 815 N.E.2d 1015, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (noting that the 

appellant’s contentions were not utterly devoid of all plausibility). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we remand to the trial court with instructions to conduct 

a new hearing on Foster Parents’ Motion to Tax Fees and Costs, we decline to address 

Grandparents’ arguments related to the adoption of J.P. by Foster Parents, and we deny 

Foster Parents’ request for appellate attorney fees. 

Remanded for further proceedings. 

RILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.