Opinion
23A-GU-1892
01-11-2024
In Re the Guardianship of E.A. (Minor Child) v. J.R.H., Appellee-Petitioner C.C., Appellant-Respondent,
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mark K. Leeman Leeman Law Offices Logansport, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Cass Circuit Court The Honorable Stephen R. Kitts, II, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 09C01-2108-GU-35
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mark K. Leeman Leeman Law Offices Logansport, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
WEISSMANN, JUDGE.
[¶1] C.C. (Mother) appeals the trial court's ruling on her motion to terminate the guardianship of her child E.A. (Child). As the trial court entered only a preliminary order and not a final judgment, we find the appeal premature and therefore dismiss it.
Facts
[¶2] One of Child's regular caregivers, J.R.H. (Guardian), successfully sought appointment as Child's guardian when Child was three years old. Mother, who acknowledges she was engaging in substance abuse before that, did not contest the creation of Child's guardianship. But Mother soon completed a substance abuse treatment program, began to regularly meet with a recovery sponsor, and consistently tested negative for drug use.
[¶3] When Mother eventually moved to terminate Child's guardianship, the trial court recognized her recovery efforts as "a tremendous thing." App. Vol. II, p. 66. But instead of ending the guardianship, the court ordered Child to remain with Guardian, subject to Mother's parenting time, through October 27, 2023, and then to move to Mother's home, subject to Guardian's "parenting time," from October 28, 2023, through January 26, 2024. Id. The court further ordered that "[f]urther hearing on the matter of the Termination of the Guardianship is to be scheduled by the parties for a date after January 26, 2024, unless there is an express written agreement of termination filed beforehand." Id. at 66-67.
[¶4] Mother did not seek certification of the trial court's ruling as a final judgment.
She also did not request the court's certification of the order for interlocutory appeal. Instead, she appealed the ruling as if it were a final judgment.
Discussion and Decision
[¶5] This Court has "jurisdiction in all appeals from Final Judgments of Circuit, Superior, Probate, and County Courts" and most appeals of interlocutory orders under Indiana Appellate Rule 14. Ind. Appellate Rule 5(A)-(B). "A judgment is a final judgment if:
(1) it disposes of all claims as to all parties;
(2) the trial court in writing expressly determines under Trial Rule 54(B) or Trial Rule 56(C) that there is no just reason for delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of judgment (i) under Trial Rule 54(B) as to fewer than all the claims or parties, or (ii) under Trial Rule 56(C) as to fewer than all the issues, claims or parties;
(3) it is deemed final under Trial Rule 60(C);
(4) it is a ruling on either a mandatory or permissive Motion to Correct Error which was timely filed . . .;
(5) it is otherwise deemed final by law."Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H). The requirement of a final judgment "is to enhance judicial economy by avoiding duplicative appeals." DeCola v. Norfolk S. Corp., 222 N.E.3d 938, 939 (Ind. 2023).
[¶6] The trial court's order meets none of the relevant requirements of a final judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H). It did not "dispose of all claims as to all parties," given that Mother's motion to terminate the guardianship remained pending after the order was entered. App. R. 2(H)(1). The order also was not certified as a final judgment. See App. R. 2(H)(2). Nor does this appeal satisfy the requirements of an interlocutory appeal under Appellate Rule 14. The trial court essentially deferred a final judgment until after January 26, 2024, meaning no final judgment exists and this appeal is premature. Matter of Adoption of S.L., 210 N.E.3d 1280, 1283-84 (Ind. 2023) (finding no final judgment in appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion for temporary custody in an adoption proceeding because the adoption petition remained pending and the order was not certified as a final judgment).
Appellate Rule 2(H)(3)-(5) is irrelevant here.
[¶7] Neither the parties nor the trial court raised the issue of appellate jurisdiction. But this Court's jurisdiction over an appeal is an issue that cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. DeCola, 222 N.E.3d at 940. "Imposing and enforcing limits on judicial power are important not only in their own right, but in sending the vital message that we police ourselves just as vigilantly as we do other government actors." Id.
[¶8] Finding this appeal premature for lack of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Altice, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.