Opinion ID: 855048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remedy on Remand.

Text: Having determined that the trial court’s order is defective, we must now determine the appropriate remedy. K.I., for example, resulted in remand “with instructions to enter appropriate findings and conclusions consistent with this opinion and the Grandparent Visitation Act.” 903 7 N.E.2d at 462–63. Several Court of Appeals decisions, including McCune, have also concluded that the remedy is a remand for new findings and conclusions based upon the existing record. E.g., In re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d 343, 359–60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (remanding for “more specific findings and conclusions,” but “without a hearing”); J.E.M., 870 N.E.2d at 522 (remanding “for further consideration . . . in light of” McCune); Ramsey v. Ramsey, 863 N.E.2d 1232, 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (remanding for more specific findings and conclusions “in accordance with McCune”); McCune, 783 N.E.2d at 759–60 (“we remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion”). We agree that the same remedy is appropriate in this case. Even though the trial court’s findings are insufficient, that does not render its order void — that is, “of no effect whatsoever, . . . incapable of confirmation or ratification.” P.E.M., 818 N.E.2d at 36–37. Rather, “[w]hen a trial court fails to issue specific findings in accordance with McCune, the order is voidable, and the remedy on appeal is a remand to the trial court instructing it to enter a proper order containing the required findings.” A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d at 359 (emphasis added). We therefore remand to the trial court for entry of new findings and conclusions revealing its consideration of all four McCune/K.I. factors, without a new hearing. In ordering new findings on the old evidence, it is not our goal to impose a rigid formalism, under which any order that recites enough of Troxel’s “magic words” will be affirmed. Obviously, it will not be enough to merely recite those factors, unless there is also analysis of how the evidence as weighed by the trial court fits within that framework. Conversely, we also do not decide the extent to which a trial court’s findings that do not mention these factors by name might nevertheless sufficiently address them in substance. For today, it is enough to observe that this particular order wholly fails to address the first two factors, and is unclear at best as to its assessment of the third; and that each of those defects is of constitutional dimension. Accordingly, this order is voidable and requires remand to correct those defects through new findings and conclusions.