Opinion
23A-GU-1223
07-25-2024
In the Matter of the Guardianship of L.R. and P.P., v. Tammy Rehlander, Appellee-Petitioner Bridget Null, Appellant-Respondent
APPELLANT PRO SE Bridget Null Chesterton, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Laura M. Longstreet Longstreet Law, LLC South Bend, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Porter Superior Court The Honorable Michael A. Fish, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 64D01-2209-GU-7733, 64D01-2209-GU-7734, 64D01-2211-GU-9243, 64D01-2211-GU-9245
We note that Jeffrey A. Golding initially filed an appearance as Mother's counsel and filed an Appellant's brief on her behalf. However, he subsequently withdrew his appearance as Mother's counsel, and no other attorney has filed an appearance with this court on her behalf.
Bridget Null
Chesterton, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Laura M. Longstreet
Longstreet Law, LLC
South Bend, Indiana
Judges Riley and Brown concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Foley, Judge.
[¶1] Bridget Null ("Mother") appeals from the trial court's order awarding permanent guardianship of her children, L.R. and P.P. (together, "the Children"), to Tammy Rehlander ("Guardian"). Mother raises several issues for our review, which we restate as the following dispositive issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing an order of temporary guardianship. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Mother is the biological mother of L.R. and P.P. At the time of the instant proceedings, both of the Children's fathers were deceased. P.P. was the subject of a child in need of services ("CHINS") proceeding beginning in November of 2015, and L.R. was the subject of a CHINS proceeding beginning in March 2016. Those CHINS proceedings were initiated due to Mother's drug use. As a result of those prior CHINS proceedings, the Children were initially placed in the care of Guardian during the early summer of 2017. Guardian, thereafter, filed for guardianship, and she had guardianship of the Children until there was an agreement to terminate the guardianship in September 2021. This prior guardianship was therefore terminated by agreement in the fall of 2021.
[¶3] Within two months after the Children were returned to Mother's care, Mother relapsed and returned to her drug use and addiction. On July 5, 2022, a report was made to the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS"), alleging that Mother was driving around with the Children in the car while she consumed mushrooms containing psilocybin and alcohol. On July 7, 2022, Mother was pulled over by the police and found to be in possession of methamphetamines, psilocybin mushrooms, and marijuana while the Children were in the car with her. After this, Mother and DCS agreed to an Informal Adjustment, where Mother was to keep her drug paraphernalia away from the Children and maternal grandparents were to ensure that Mother was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the presence of the Children. On August 29, 2022, Mother was again stopped by law enforcement while driving, and drug paraphernalia was found in her car. On September 7, 2022, the State filed criminal charges against Mother based upon her possession of illegal drugs and contraband during the July and August 2022 traffic stops.
[¶4] Guardian learned of Mother's involvement with DCS in approximately August 2022 from a third party. She contacted DCS to confirm whether a case had been opened regarding the Children, and they informed her that there was not. Guardian was not aware that DCS could not "divulge that information" and then contacted her attorney. Tr. Vol. III p. 183. On September 13, 2022, Guardian filed an Emergency Petition for Appointment of Guardian for Minor ("Emergency Petition") for P.P., then seven years old, and L.R., then six years old. On September 14, 2022, Mother was arrested on a warrant for her outstanding criminal charges after picking up the Children from school. On September 28, 2022, Guardian filed an amended Emergency Petition for each child, indicating that "an emergency exists and immediate and irreparable injury to the person or injury, loss or damage to the property of the minor may result before the parties can be heard in response to the petition," and that "the welfare of the minor requires immediate action." Appellee's App. Vol. 2 pp. 10, 15.
[¶5] On September 28, 2022, the trial court issued an order setting the Emergency Petition for hearing on December 2, 2022. Thereafter, the trial court appointed Guardian as the temporary guardian for L.R. on September 30, 2022, and for P.P. on October 3, 2022. Notice was issued to Mother on October 4, 2022, and she was served by the Porter County Sheriff's Department on October 10, 2022. On November 2, 2022, maternal grandparents petitioned to be appointed permanent guardians over the Children. Guardian then cross-petitioned for permanent guardianship over the Children on February 10, 2023.
The petitions for permanent guardianship filed by maternal grandparents were assigned separate cause numbers, 64D01-2211-GU-9243 and 64D01-2211-GU-9245 so that there was a temporary guardianship cause number for each child and a permanent cause number for each child as well. On November 16, 2022, the two permanent guardianship cause numbers were transferred so that all four cause numbers would be heard by the same trial court judge.
[¶6] At the December 2, 2022 hearing, which was held on the temporary guardianship only, the trial court acknowledged that it was aware that the initial temporary guardianship order was for only ninety days. The court indicated that it wanted to extend the temporary guardianship for an additional ninety days, acknowledging that it would "need to have a final hearing within that time frame." Tr. Vol. II p. 19. The trial court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing commencing on February 9, 2023. The trial court conducted consolidated evidentiary hearings for all of the pending guardianship cases with the hearings being held on February 9, 2023, February 14, 2023, March 2, 2023, and March 22, 2023.
[¶7] On February 8, 2023, the day before the first evidentiary hearing, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the temporary guardianship due to an alleged defect in the notice. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the issuance of temporary guardianship without notice was proper under Indiana Code section 29-3-3-4(a) and that the notice for the December 2, 2022 hearing was "in accordance with the rules." Tr. Vol. II p. 67. The evidentiary hearing resumed on February 14, 2023, and at approximately 4:30 a.m. on that morning, Mother filed a motion to dismiss alleging the trial court had been deprived of subject matter jurisdiction due to the Informal Adjustment filed in the juvenile court. After argument was heard on the motion, the trial court informed the parties that it had contacted the juvenile court magistrate to "ask her whether she believed she had jurisdiction over [the Children,] and she told me she did not[,] and it was not a concern for her at all for us to proceed with the guardianship." Id. at 139. The trial court thereafter denied the motion to dismiss.
[¶8] On March 22, 2023, the trial court heard additional evidence, including testimony from a DCS employee who confirmed that Guardian would not have been able to obtain any information about whether an Informal Adjustment was open when Guardian called DCS. The DCS employee also confirmed that the Informal Adjustment was closed in November 2022 due to the temporary guardianship being entered, stating that DCS's "entire purpose is achieving permanency for a child and we consider guardianship, whether that be temporary or permanent, to be per[ma]nency for a child" so there was no longer a "need for the courts or intervention of the juvenile court." Tr. Vol. IV pp. 51-52. There was also testimony that Mother was not in compliance with the terms of the Informal Adjustment at the time that Guardian sought the guardianship.
[¶9] At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On March 28, 2023, the trial court issued its order appointing Guardian as the permanent guardian of the Children. Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶10] Mother argues that the trial court erred in granting guardianship of the Children to Guardian. Although Mother is appealing from the grant of a permanent guardianship of the Children, all of her arguments focus on alleged errors made in the grant of the temporary guardianship. Mother first asserts that the trial court erred in granting the temporary guardianship without giving her notice and without first holding a hearing. She next contends that the trial court erred in granting the temporary guardianship because the Informal Adjustment was pending at the time in the juvenile court, which deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to grant the temporary guardianship. Lastly, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it extended the temporary guardianship and that the trial court lost "jurisdiction" over the case, such that any orders issued after March 9, 2023, are void. Appellant's Br. p. 22.
[¶11] In the context of guardianship proceedings, "[a]ll findings, orders, or other proceedings" "shall be in the discretion of the court." Ind. Code § 29-3-2-4(a). Therefore, we will review the trial court's order for an abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of Hollenga, 852 N.E.2d 933, 936 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006). An abuse of discretion occurs only when the decision of the trial court is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. In addition, we will give due regard to the trial court's ability to assess the credibility of witnesses. In re Guardianship of J.K., 862 N.E.2d 686, 691 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007). We will not reweigh the evidence; instead, we consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the judgment. Id.
[¶12] Mother appeals after the issuance of an order appointing permanent guardianship of the Children. However, almost all of her issues raised for our review allege errors that occurred in the issuance of the temporary guardianship. Any claims regarding the procedure followed or the issuance of the temporary guardianship are rendered moot by the subsequent order of permanent guardianship. See In re Estate of Moster, 158 N.E.3d 775, 781 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020) (concluding that a temporary guardianship expired as a matter of law after the statutory timeframe concluded and that person under the temporary guardianship was therefore no longer subject to the temporary guardianship). "The long-standing rule in Indiana courts has been that a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court." Matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). When the controversy at issue has been ended or settled, or somehow disposed of so as to render it unnecessary to decide the question involved, the case will be dismissed. Id. Here, once the order of permanent guardianship was issued, the order of temporary guardianship ended and no effective relief could be granted as to that order, rendering any challenge to it moot.
[¶13] Although we sometimes address moot issues when an exception exists, here, Mother failed to raise any grounds in support of an exception to mootness and we find none exists. See Rainey v. Ind. Election Comm'n, 208 N.E.3d 641, 644 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (addressed the merits of a moot case under the public interest exception), trans. denied; see also Gaither v. Ind. Dept. of Corr., 971 N.E.2d 690, 694 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) (addressed the merits of a moot issue because it was "capable of repetition, but likely to evade review"); see also C.P. v. St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Ctr., Inc., 219 N.E.3d 142, 144 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (addressed the merits of a moot case under the collateral consequences exception). Therefore, any challenge to the order of temporary guardianship is moot.
[¶14] Further, to the extent that Mother argues that the permanent guardianship order is void because the trial court lost "jurisdiction" of the case, we disagree. Appellant's Br. p. 22. First, Mother has waived this argument because she failed to raise it to the trial court. It is well established that "an issue raised by an appellant for the first time on appeal is waived." Israel v. Israel, 189 N.E.3d 170, 177 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022), trans. denied. Here, Mother had multiple opportunities to make her argument below, including at the hearing held on March 23, 2023, and in her motion to correct error, but did not do so. Because she is raising her contention for the first time on appeal, it is therefore waived. Second, we disagree with Mother's argument that the trial court lost jurisdiction after March 9, 2023, thus making the order of permanent guardianship void. Our Supreme Court has explained that "phrases recently common to Indiana practice, like 'jurisdiction over a particular case,' confuse actual jurisdiction with legal error, and we will be better off ceasing such characterizations." K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind. 2006). "The fact that a trial court may have erred along the course of adjudicating a dispute does not mean it lacked jurisdiction." Id. at 541. Without deciding whether the trial court made any error, we conclude that the trial court maintained jurisdiction over the permanent guardianship cases despite any errors that may have occurred during the issuance of the temporary guardianship, and the order appointing permanent guardianship was not void.
[¶15] Because Mother does not raise any arguments as to the merits of the trial court's decision to appoint Guardian as the permanent guardian of the Children, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the order of permanent guardianship.
[¶16] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.