Court Opinion

ID: 9523589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:44:29.759572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:40.173043
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings and conclusion that Grandfather touched K.H.’s genitals to apply a cream or ointment for treatment of a rash. I acknowledge that Grandfather’s testimony was somewhat equivocal as to whether and under what circumstances he touched K.H.’s genitals. In addition to Grandfather’s testimony, the trial court heard a statement K.H. gave to Deborah Borchelt, a Gibson County Sheriffs Department officer, in which K.H. stated, among other things, that Grandfather touched her “one time ... ‘cause he put something there.’ ” Tr. at 55. Officer Borchelt concluded from her interview with K.H. that Grandfather had touched K.H. “only one time ... inside her panties with his fingers and he moved []his fingers up and down and ... it tickled and hurt.” Appellant’s Appendix at 153. After meeting with K.H.’s step-mother, Ann Sulawske, a Gibson County Family and Children Services’ worker, was of the opin*877ion that K.H. had been touched by Grandfather. Based on her own opinion of the facts and Officer Borchelt’s conclusion, Su-lawske “substantiated” the claim of sexual molestation. However, none of the evidence is inconsistent with the trial court’s findings and conclusion. As the weighing of evidence and judging of credibility is a matter for the trial court to resolve, I would not dismiss the trial court’s findings as unsupported.
The majority further concludes that Father’s belief that Grandfather molested K.H. is not unreasonable. A presumption exists that a fit parent’s decision is in the best interests of the children. Magyese v. Woods, 808 N.E.2d 1208, 1213 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). The presumption is rebuttable, however. Id. Here, the trial court, having heard all the evidence, determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that Grandfather did not molest K.H. and therefore Father’s belief otherwise is unreasonable. It may be that, given Father’s belief, a more structured visitation plan would have been in order; that is, supervised visits or some other limited means of keeping the children and Grandparents connected. My concern with the majority’s statement is that it could give a parent almost carte blanche to deny grandparent visitation for any reason or no reason at all. The trial court, after listening to the testimony, concluded that the parent’s reasons for denying visitation were unfounded and that awarding grandparents visitation with the children was in the children’s best interests; thus, visitation in at least some form should be allowed.