Court Opinion

ID: 9520350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:37:31.621173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:01.596337
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority's resolution of the temporary and permanent guardianship issues presented in this case. However, I part ways with the determination that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the Conovers visitation with A.L.C. that was purportedly in excess of the schedule set forth in the Grandparent Visitation Act.7
I acknowledge that a trial court may not order visitation to a grandparent "nearly coextensive with the visitation set out in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines." Op. at 358 (citing Hoeing v. Williams, 880 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind.Ct.App.2008)). However, as the trial made clear in its guardianship order, Father's parenting time with A.L.C. was to be supervised by his parents, the Conovers. As a result, even though the Conovers' visitation with A.L.C. would be concurrent with Father's parenting time, I cannot agree that the circumstances dictate that the Conovers were erroneously granted visitation time in excess of that which is provided for under the Grandparent Visitation Act. Put another way, it is apparent that the Conovers only received the amount of visitation to which Father was entitled. To conclude that the Conovers were granted an excessive amount of visitation time simply elevates form over substance. Moreover, I cannot agree that the visitation schedule ordered in this case could exclude the Joneses-A.L.C.'s third set of grandparents-from "having a meaningful amount of time with [A.LC.]" Op. at 359. I would affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

. Ind.Code §§ 31-17-5-1 through -10.