Court Opinion

ID: 9909509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 17:03:28.056779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:30.808015
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               Dec 13 2023, 9:07 am

                                                                                    CLERK
                                                                                Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                   Court of Appeals
                                                                                     and Tax Court

      ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
      Alexander E. Budzenski
      Indianapolis, Indiana

                                                  IN THE
          COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

      In the Matter of the Paternity of                         December 13, 2023
      A.J.L.B., a Minor, by his next                            Court of Appeals Case No.
      friend Grisel Bonilla Lemus,                              23A-JP-1436
      Appellant-Petitioner,                                     Appeal from the Bartholomew
                                                                Superior Court
              v.                                                The Honorable Jonathan L.
                                                                Rohde, Judge
      Jaime Lazo Alvarenga,                                     Trial Court Cause No.
      Appellee-Respondent                                       03D02-2305-JP-2187

                                        Opinion by Judge Crone
                                    Judges Riley and Mathias concur.

      Crone, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   Following the entry of the trial court’s judgment granting the paternity petition

      filed by Grisel Bonilla Lemus (Mother), Mother filed two motions. First, she

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023                         Page 1 of 12
      filed a motion to correct error, in which she asked the trial court to amend the

      judgment to add findings that are required for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ)

      status. The trial court denied the motion, stating that Mother had not asked for

      the findings in her petition or at the hearing on the petition. Mother also filed a

      motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence seeking to amend

      the paternity petition to add a request for the findings required for SIJ status.

      The trial court also denied that motion.

[2]   Mother now appeals. She argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion

      to correct error because the requested SIJ findings were sufficiently before the

      court. She also asserts that the trial court erred in denying her motion to amend

      the pleadings because the evidence at trial supported amendment. We agree

      with Mother on both issues, and therefore we reverse and remand with

      instructions to grant Mother’s motions and issue a new judgment with the

      requested SIJ findings.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   On May 4, 2023, Mother filed her paternity petition, in which she alleged the

      following: Mother resides in Columbus, Indiana; A.J.L.B. (Child) was born in

      February 2013 in Honduras; Jaime Lazo Alvarenga (Father) is Child’s

      biological father and is identified as such on Child’s birth certificate; Mother

      and Father have never resided together; Father has not communicated with or

      provided financial support for Child for nine years; Father’s exact whereabouts

      are unknown; Mother seeks establishment of paternity and to be awarded sole

      legal and physical custody of Child; Child’s best interest is served by granting
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023      Page 2 of 12
      the petition because Father “has abandoned [C]hild in that he has never been a

      part of [Child’s] life and has never provided any type of economic support,” and

      “it is in the Child’s best interest that [he] not be returned to [his] home country

      as there is no one there that can properly care for [him], and the country is

      extremely dangerous.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12-13. Mother requested a

      hearing “to adjudicate this Petition to establish paternity, to grant to her sole

      legal and physical custody of the minor [C]hild, and for all other proper relief in

      the premises.” Id. at 13. Along with the petition, Mother filed Child’s birth

      certificate, Father’s consent and waiver of service and notice, and Father’s

      affidavit. In his affidavit, Father attested that he did not have any contact with

      or provide financial support for Child, that Father’s country is “very violent …

      and there is also a lot of poverty,” and that it is in Child’s best interest that

      Mother have full custody. Id. at 21.

[4]   On May 25, 2023, the trial court held a hearing with Mother, her counsel, and a

      court-appointed interpreter present. The court took judicial notice of Mother’s

      petition and the documents filed with it. Mother testified that she separated

      from Father shortly after Child’s birth, that Father had not had contact with or

      provided financial assistance to Child, and that Father and Child do not have a

      relationship. Mother explained that she brought Child to the United States

      when he was six years old because it was not safe in Honduras. Mother testified

      that she had lived in Columbus for approximately five years with Child, who

      was currently in fourth grade, and that Mother worked full time in a factory. In

      addition, Mother testified that she believed that Father had abandoned Child

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023        Page 3 of 12
      and that it is in Child’s best interest to remain in Indiana under her care. At the

      conclusion of the hearing, the trial court informed Mother’s counsel that it had

      the proposed order and would take the matter under advisement.

[5]   The proposed order included findings regarding paternity, custody, and

      parenting time, as well as the following two findings that are the subject of this

      appeal:

               19. This Court is a state court with juvenile jurisdiction according
               to IC § 31-21-5-1,[ 1] and it now places child under the custody of
               child’s Mother, Grisel Bonilla Lemus, an individual appointed by
               the Court, who is hereby appointed as the sole legal and physical
               custodian of [Child].

               20. [Child] is an unmarried minor who has been abandoned
               according to IC § 31-19-9-8,[ 2] by his biological father, who has
               not had contact with child, nor provided economic support for
               child, for approximately 10 years. Child is unable to care for his
               person, and child’s reunification with his father is not possible at
               this time due to the abandonment. Under Indiana law, it is in
               child’s best interest to not be returned to Honduras but rather to
               stay here with [Mother], where [Mother] can continue to care for
               child, due to the fact that there is no one in Honduras who can
               properly care for the child, in addition to the fact that the country
               is extremely dangerous and Child would be unable to care for
               himself due to his minority.

      1
       Indiana Code Section 31-21-5-1 sets forth the jurisdictional prerequisites for making an initial child custody
      determination under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
      2
       Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-8(b) provides, “If a parent has made only token efforts to support or to
      communicate with the child the court may declare the child abandoned by the parent.”

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023                              Page 4 of 12
      Id. at 33. Later that day, the trial court entered the judgment granting Mother’s

      petition. The judgment included findings that Father had not had contact with

      or provided financial support for Child for approximately ten years and that it

      was in Child’s best interest for Mother to have sole legal and primary physical

      custody of Child. In sum, the judgment included the findings in the proposed

      order except for findings 19 and 20.

[6]   On May 27, 2023, Mother filed her motion to correct error. Mother stated that

      Child was working to resolve his immigration status, which included an SIJ

      status petition, and that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

      (USCIS) requires that the judgment include specific language regarding certain

      findings. Mother requested that the judgment be amended to add the findings

      with the required language (findings 19 and 20) and stated that the amendment

      to the judgment did not require additional findings beyond those it already

      contained to support the language required by the USCIS.

[7]   On May 31, 2023, the trial court issued an order denying Mother’s motion to

      correct error on the basis that neither Mother nor her counsel had requested the

      findings with the language needed for SIJ status in Mother’s petition or during

      the hearing.

[8]   On June 14, 2023, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 15(B), Mother filed her

      motion to amend the pleadings. Mother acknowledged that the proposed order

      that she had filed with the court before the final hearing requested

      determinations regarding the Child’s best interest that had not been specifically

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023    Page 5 of 12
      requested in the paternity petition, but she explained that she did not

      purposefully omit the requested determinations from the petition in an attempt

      to deceive or conceal. Mother asserted that she provided sufficient testimony at

      the final hearing for a ruling on all the requested determinations in the proposed

      order, and she requested that “the pleadings be amended as the presentation of

      the merits of the action will be subserved thereby.” Id. at 36. The same day, the

      trial court denied the motion. This appeal ensued.

      Discussion and Decision
[9]   As an initial matter, we note that Father did not file an appellee’s brief. “When

      an appellee fails to submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of

      developing arguments, and we apply a less stringent standard of review; that is,

      we may reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie error.” In re Paternity of

      Mendoza Bonilla, 127 N.E.3d 1181, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Prima facie error

      means “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Willis v. Dilden

      Bros., Inc., 184 N.E.3d 1167, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Atkins v.

      Crawford Cnty. Clerk’s Off., 171 N.E.3d 131, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)), trans.

      denied. “This less stringent standard of review relieves us of the burden of

      refuting arguments advanced in favor of reversal where that burden properly

      rests with the opposing party.” Id.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023       Page 6 of 12
[10]   Mother appeals the denials of her motion to correct error and her motion to

       amend the pleadings. 3 “A trial court’s rulings on a motion to correct error and

       on a motion to amend the pleadings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

       Perkins v. Brown, 901 N.E.2d 63, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “An abuse of

       discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of

       the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted

       the law.” Poiry v. City of New Haven, 113 N.E.3d 1236, 1239 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2018).

[11]   Both of Mother’s motions sought to secure a final judgment with findings

       required for Child to seek SIJ status. SIJ is a classification under federal law

       that allows a qualifying resident alien child the potential to attain lawful

       permanent residency in the United States. In re Guardianship of Luis, 114 N.E.3d

       855, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) and 8 C.F.R. §

       204.11)). Congress created the SIJ classification “to protect abused, neglected,

       and abandoned immigrant youth through a process allowing them to become

       legal permanent citizens.” Id. (quoting In re J.J.X.C., a Child, 734 S.E.2d 120,

       123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)).

       3
         Mother titled her motion “52(B) Motion to Amend Judgment and/or Motion to Correct Errors.”
       Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 28. Indiana Trial Rule 59 permits any party to file a motion to correct error within
       thirty days of the entry of final judgment and grants the trial court the authority to “[a]lter, amend, modify, or
       correct judgment,” or “[a]mend or correct the findings or judgment as provided in Rule 52(B).” Indiana Trial
       Rule 52(B) authorizes the trial court to “take additional testimony, amend or make new findings of fact and
       enter a new judgment or any combination thereof,” “with or as part of a” Trial Rule 59 motion to correct
       error.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023                                Page 7 of 12
[12]   Although the final decision regarding whether a child qualifies for SIJ status is

       made by the federal government, the process for obtaining SIJ status requires

       “the collaboration of state and federal systems.” Id. at 858 (quoting In re Marisol

       N.H., 979 N.Y.S.2d 643, 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)). The state juvenile court,

       “as the appropriate forum for child welfare determinations regarding abuse,

       neglect, or abandonment, and a child’s best interests[,]”“is charged with making

       the factual inquiry relevant to SIJ status” and entering an order regarding its

       findings. Id. (quoting J.J.X.C., 734 S.E.2d at 124). The “state court’s role in the

       SIJ process is not to determine worthy candidates for citizenship, but simply to

       identify abused, neglected, or abandoned alien children under its jurisdiction

       who cannot reunify with a parent or be safely returned in their best interests to

       their home country.” Id. After the state court issues an order with the required

       findings, the child can submit his or her application for SIJ status to the USCIS.

       Id. “Relief is not guaranteed and denial of the application renders [the minor]

       subject to deportation as an undocumented immigrant.” In re Guardianship of

       Xitumul, 137 N.E.3d 945, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting In re Estate of Nina

       L., 41 N.E.3d 930, 938-39 (Ill. Ct. App. 2015)) (alteration in Xitumul). Although

       there are few Indiana cases addressing SIJ status, we have held that a trial court

       errs when it fails to make findings on SIJ status when requested. Luis, 114

       N.E.3d at 859; Xitumul, 137 N.E.3d at 953-54; Mendoza Bonilla, 127 N.E.3d at

       1187.

[13]   As Mother recognizes in her appellant’s brief, for a child to be eligible for SIJ

       status, the state juvenile court must make the following findings:

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023      Page 8 of 12
               (1) “reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant’s parents is not
               viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis
               found under State law”; and (2) “it would not be in the alien’s
               best interest to be returned to the alien’s or parent’s previous
               country of nationality or country of last habitual residence.”

       Appellant’s Br. at 5 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)-(ii)).

[14]   Turning first to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to correct error, we

       note that it did so on the basis that Mother never requested “the Court to make

       certain findings necessary to seek classification as a special immigrant juvenile

       in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).” Appealed Order at 4. Mother

       concedes that her petition could have been clearer but asserts that the requested

       SIJ findings were sufficiently before the trial court because the facts to support

       the SIJ findings were pled, the evidence supported the facts, and the requested

       findings were in the proposed order.

[15]   In support of her argument, Mother relies on Xitumul, 137 N.E.3d 945. In that

       guardianship case, the petition requested an order finding, among other things,

       that the child had “been abandoned and neglected by both of her parents” and

       that it was not in the child’s “best interests to be returned to her country of

       nationality and last residence.” Id. at 949 (citation omitted). In its order denying

       guardianship, the trial court stated that “[n]o mention was made in the

       pleadings or at the hearing that [the child] was seeking [SIJ] status under

       Federal Law,” and that the petitioner “should have been more forthcoming as

       to the purpose of this litigation if the true purpose was to obtain findings in

       furtherance of” the child’s SIJ status. Id. at 953 (citation and quotation marks

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023      Page 9 of 12
       omitted). The Xitumul court concluded that even though the petitioner had not

       specifically mentioned SIJ status, the issue was before the trial court because the

       petition asked for findings regarding abandonment and the child’s return to her

       country of nationality. Id. However, the Xitumul court observed,

               Citation to pertinent authority in a guardianship petition or
               specific invocation of SIJ status at a hearing may not be required.
               However, it is certainly not prohibited. And indeed, it is likely a
               good idea to be forthcoming in order to avoid situations such as
               this, where the relief requested was oblique at best and the lack of
               clarity likely contributed to the order failing to meet the
               requirements of an SIJ predicate order.

       Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

[16]   Here, Mother’s petition alleged that Father has “abandoned [C]hild in that he

       has never been a part of [Child’s] life and has never provided any type of

       economic support,” and that “it is in the Child’s best interest that [he] not be

       returned to [his] home country as there is no one there that can properly care

       for [him], and the country is extremely dangerous.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at

       12-13. These facts are sufficient under our notice pleading standard to raise SIJ

       status. See Shields v. Taylor, 976 N.E.2d 1237, 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)

       (“Notice pleading merely requires pleading the operative facts so as to place the

       defendant on notice as to the evidence to be presented at trial.”).

[17]   In addition, at the hearing, Mother testified that since she separated from

       Father shortly after Child’s birth, Father has not had contact with or provided

       financial assistance to Child, Father has abandoned Child, and it is in Child’s

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023     Page 10 of 12
       best interest to remain in Indiana under her care. In his affidavit, Father attested

       that he did not have contact with or provide financial support for Child, that

       Father’s country was “very violent … and that there is a lot of poverty,” and

       that it is in Child’s best interest that Mother have full custody. Appellant’s App.

       Vol. 2 at 21. Finally, the proposed order submitted to the trial court at the

       hearing requested the specific findings necessary for Child’s application for SIJ

       status. Like the Court in Xitumul, we conclude that the requested SIJ findings

       were before the court, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion by

       denying Mother’s motion to correct error.

[18]   Turning now to the motion to amend the pleadings, we observe that Indiana

       Trial Rule 15(B) provides,

               When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or
               implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects
               as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of
               the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to
               the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion
               of any party at any time, even after judgment ....

       As discussed above, evidence was presented that supports the requested SIJ

       findings, and the proposed order requested the specific findings. The

       amendment would allow the petition to request relief that conforms to the

       evidence. See Highland Springs S. Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Reinstatler, 907 N.E.2d

       1067, 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (concluding that amendment would allow

       complaint to reflect entirety of appellant’s position as set forth over course of

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023      Page 11 of 12
       proceedings), trans. denied. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion

       in denying the motion to amend the pleadings.

[19]   Although we have found that Mother’s motions should have been granted, we

       nevertheless believe that the better practice would have been to clearly indicate

       to the trial court in the petition or at the hearing that specific SIJ findings were

       being requested. Obviously, that would have avoided the difficulties

       encountered here.

[20]   Based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s denials of Mother’s motions

       and remand with instructions to grant the motions, allow amendment of the

       petition, and amend the judgment to include the requested findings.

[21]   Reversed and remanded.

       Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-1436 | December 13, 2023      Page 12 of 12