Opinion
24A-GU-1251
12-20-2024
Carl Potts, Appellant-Interested Person v. Cheryl Ritschard, Appellee-Guardian
APPELLANT PRO SE Carl Potts Columbia City, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Ryan M. Gardner Beers Mallers, LLP Fort Wayne, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Whitley Superior Cour The Honorable Matthew J. Rentschler, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 92C01-2008-GU-000020
APPELLANT PRO SE
Carl Potts Columbia City, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Ryan M. Gardner Beers Mallers, LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FELIX, JUDGE
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Carl Potts, pro se, filed a motion for change of guardianship for his alleged daughter. The trial court issued an order denying Potts's motion and noting that Potts had not established paternity. Potts filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied. Potts appeals and presents multiple issues that we restate as the following single issue: Whether the trial court erred in denying Potts's motion for relief from judgment.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] In 2003, while living in Kentucky, Cheryl Ritschard gave birth to her daughter Santana who was born with Down syndrome and autism. At some point prior to the initiation of these proceedings, Ritschard and Santana moved to Columbia City, Indiana. On August 14, 2020, Ritschard filed a petition to be appointed as Santana's guardian due to Santana's disabilities. On October 2, 2020, the trial court determined that Santana was incapacitated due to her mental disabilities and appointed Ritschard as her guardian.
Potts failed to provide multiple relevant documents, including Ritschard's petition for guardianship and the trial court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment. Pursuant to Appellate Rule 27, we take judicial notice of these documents. Additionally, we note that the parties have provided us with limited factual background surrounding these proceedings and we have provided the limited detail we can glean from the court filings.
[¶4] On September 26, 2022, Potts initiated a paternity action in Whitley Circuit Court, attempting to establish paternity, custody, and parenting time over Santana. On December 19, 2022, Potts filed a motion to remove Ritschard as Santana's guardian, alleging that he was the biological father, custodian, and caregiver for Santana. On March 24, 2023, the Whitley Circuit Court dismissed Potts's paternity action.
Previously, in 2019, Potts petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana ("District Court") to establish paternity of Sanatana. Instead, the District Court issued an order barring Potts from establishing paternity over Santana.
[¶5] On April 21, 2023, the trial court entered an order denying Potts's motion to remove Ritschard as Santana's guardian. In its order, the trial court noted that "Potts is not Santana's legal father," citing the failed paternity actions in both state and federal court. Appellee's App. Vol. II at 25. On April 22, 2024, Potts filed a motion for relief from judgment, alleging mistake and fraud in the trial court's April 21, 2023, order. The trial court denied this motion the next day. Potts now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶6] Potts claims the trial court committed multiple errors in denying his motion for relief from judgment. However, we cannot address those claims due to Potts's significant noncompliance with Appellate Rule 46. Although we have a well-established preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds like waiver, Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) 2 (quoting Roberts v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc., 897 N.E.2d 458, 469 (Ind. 2008)), if a party's failure to comply with the Appellate Rules is "sufficiently substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised," we will not address the merits of that issue, id. (quoting Guardiola v. State, 375 N.E.2d 1105, 1107 (Ind. 1978)).
[¶7] The purpose of our appellate rules-especially Appellate Rule 46 governing the content of briefs-"is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case." Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (emphasis added) (quoting Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021)). For instance, a party's analysis of an issue on appeal must be supported in relevant part by citations to the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal upon which the party relies. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). We will not search the record to find a basis for the party's argument. Carter ex rel. CNO Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Hilliard, 970 N.E.2d 735, 755 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) (citing Nealy v. Am. Family Mut. Ins., 910 N.E.2d 842, 845 n.2 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), trans. denied). Parties must also state the relevant facts in accordance with the relevant standard of review. App. R. 46(A)(6)(a). Moreover, a party's arguments must be supported by cogent reasoning. App. R. 46(A)(8)(a). "We will not step in the shoes of the advocate and fashion arguments on his behalf, 'nor will we address arguments' that are 'too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.'" Miller, 212 N.E.3d at 657 (quoting Dridi, 172 N.E.3d at 364).
[¶8] Potts has chosen to proceed pro se on appeal; this choice does not loosen the requirements of Appellate Rule 46 for Potts. See Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014) (citing In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158 (Ind. 2014)) ("A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a trained attorney and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented."). In his brief, Potts fails to provide the applicable standard of review, fails to include a single citation to the record on appeal, fails to provide a single case to support his argument, and fails to provide cogent reasoning. In fact, Potts's entire argument is as follows:
The Supreme Court violated Carl Potts Constitutional Rights by not allowing him his Due Process. The Court did not produce any violations or evidence that would have subjected him to lose his parental rights. This was a guardianship case not a juvenile or probate case which have the only jurisdiction to make judgements concerning parental rights. IC 31-30-1-1: The Juvenile Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings concerning the paternity of a child.
Appellant's Br. at 4-5. We conclude that Potts's significant noncompliance with our Appellate Rules substantially impedes our review; thus, we will not reach the merits of his appeal. As such, we affirm the trial court's denial of Potts's motion for relief from judgment.
Potts raises additional arguments in his reply brief, and Ritschard has filed a Motion to Strike these newly presented arguments. Ritschard's Mot. Strike at 1-2. It is well-settled that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived. Lockerbie Glove Co. Town Home Owner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Indianapolis Historic Pres. Comm'n, 194 N.E.3d 1175, 1184 n.7 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) (quoting Kirchgessner v. Kirchgessner, 103 N.E.3d 676, 682 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018)). Because we do not consider Potts's new arguments, we issue contemporaneously with this decision an order denying as moot Ritschard's Motion to Strike. See Wireman v. Laporte Hosp. Co., LLC, 205 N.E.3d 1041, 1046 n.2 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023).
[¶9] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.