The opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 11 2018, 8:20 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Matthew C. Maples Pamela G. Grant-Taylor
Hocker & Associates, LLC Law Office of Pamela Grant
Indianapolis, Indiana Taylor
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In re the Guardianship of: A.S.S. May 11, 2018
Glen Scisney, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1708-GU-1921
Appellant-Respondent,
Appeal from the Marion Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Steven R.
Saleem Adams and Tamara Eichholtz, Judge
Adams, Trial Court Cause No.
49D08-1604-GU-11850
Appellees-Petitioners.
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 1 of 14
[1] Glen Scisney appeals the trial court’s order naming Saleem and Tamara Adams
as the guardians of A.S.S. (“Child”). Scisney raises several issues which we
revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in naming the
Adamses as the guardians of Child. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Child and A.E.S., who was Child’s twin sibling (Child and A.E.S., together, the
“Children”), were born on January 27, 2016, to Kimberly Scisney (“Mother”). 1
Mother was overwhelmed with the idea of parenting the Children and
approached the Adamses, who attended the same church as Mother, as
potential persons who might adopt the Children. The Children were placed
with the Adamses on March 20, 2016, and Mother later signed a power of
attorney and health powers of attorney granting attorney-in-fact powers to the
Adamses to act on behalf of the Children. A short time later, Mother died as a
result of an automobile accident. On April 5, 2016, the Adamses filed a
petition requesting that the court appoint them as Child’s guardians and stating
that Child had been in their care since March 20, 2016, when Mother expressed
that her desire for Child to live with them, and that both of Child’s parents had
signed a power of attorney on March 28, 2016. The court appointed a guardian
ad litem (the “GAL”), and the GAL filed a report with the court on June 20,
1
The trial court issued a similar order naming the Adamses as the guardians of A.E.S. under cause number
49D08-1604-GU-11848 (“Cause No. 848”). We also issue a memorandum decision today affirming the trial
court’s order in Cause No. 848.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 2 of 14
2016. The court held a hearing on that day and later issued an order stating
that Scisney is the maternal grandfather of Child and that Scisney appeared at
the June 20, 2016 hearing and indicated he would be seeking guardianship and
did not contest the appointment of the Adamses as temporary guardians and
granting temporary guardianship of Child to them. On August 17, 2016,
Scisney filed a motion to contest the appointment of guardianship. On August
25, 2016, Scisney filed a counter-petition requesting that the court appoint him
as the permanent guardian of Child.
[3] On December 5, 2016, the court held a hearing at which it admitted into
evidence the GAL’s report and other documentary evidence and heard
testimony from Scisney, the Adamses, the GAL, and Devante Connor, the
putative father of the Children, among others. On June 13, 2017, after Scisney
filed a motion to produce order, the court issued an order naming the Adamses
as the guardians of Child. The order provides:
3. Kimberly Scisney is the biological mother of [the Children].
4. Devonte Connor is the alleged father but has never filed to
establish paternity.
5. Kimberly Scisney was killed in an automobile accident a few
months after giving birth to the twins.
6. Saleem and Tamara Adams belonged to the same church that
Kimberly Scisney attended.
7. Kimberly Scisney approached Saleem and Tamara Adams
about taking care of her children shortly before she died in a car
accident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 3 of 14
8. Kimberly Scisney turned the twins over to Saleem and
Tamara Adams on March 20, 2016 along with health care and
personal power[s] of attorney[] so they could obtain medical
attention for the children.
9. The alleged father, Devonte Conner [sic], also signed the
aforementioned power[s] of attorney[] even though he had not
established paternity.
10. Counter/Petitioner, Glenn [sic] Scisney, is the biological
maternal grandfather of the minor twins and filed his
Counter/Petition on August 25, 2016.
11. Glenn Scisney resides in Madisonville, KY with his present
wife . . . and two children . . . .
12. The Court appointed Kids’ Voice of Indiana as Guardian ad
Litem of the minor twins . . . .
13. The Guardian ad Litem interviewed the petitioners and
many other relatives and non-relatives and submitted its’ [sic]
report to the Court on June 20, 2016.
14. Saleem and Tamara Adams are both employed and Tamara
Adams works from home which allows her to care for [the
Children] at the same time.
15. Tamara Adams testified that they now live in a home with
3290 square feet and five bedrooms.
16. Both of the twins suffer from medical conditions that the
Adams[es] have monitored and taken them to doctors visits.
[A.E.S.] has been diagnosed with sickle cell anemia and [Child]
with tracheomalacia and laryngomalacia.
17. Saleem and Tamara Adams have not been convicted of a
felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 4 of 14
18. Testimony was given that the reason the mother, Kimberly
Scisney, did not want [Scisney] to have custody of the minor
twins is that he had been very abusive to her.
19. Glenn Scisney is the biological grandfather of [the Children].
20. Glenn Scisney testified that he is employed and has two part
time jobs one of which is in Indianapolis.
21. Glenn Scisney also testified that he is building an addition to
his home to accommodate his grandsons.
22. Glenn Scisney has not had much contact with the twins and
testified that the reason for that is the Adams[es] refused to let
him have visitation. The report of the Guardian ad Litem
confirms that the Adams[es] refused to allow Glenn Scisney
visitation based on the allegations of Kimberly Scisney of his
abusive actions against her.
23. As mentioned above the Guardian ad Litem interviewed the
parties to this matter and also other relatives and non-relatives
and submitted its recommendation to the Court in its report
dated June 20, 2016.
24. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the Court
grants guardianship of the [Children], to Saleem and Tamara
Adams.
25. The Court also orders Saleem and Tamara Adams to allow
visitation to Glenn Scisney based on their schedules.
26. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED, that Saleem and Tamara Adams, Petitioners, are
hereby appointed Guardians of the Person of [A.E.S.] and
[Child], and the Clerk is directed to issue Letters of Guardianship
to Saleem and Tamara Adams upon subscribing an Oath.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 5 of 14
Appellant’s Appendix Volume 2 at 15-17. Scisney filed a motion to correct
error, which the trial court denied.
Discussion
[4] The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in naming the Adamses
as guardians of Child. The trial court is vested with discretion in making
determinations as to the guardianship of an incapacitated person or minor. In
re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d 343, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). This
discretion extends to both its findings and its order. Id. We apply the abuse of
discretion standard to review the trial court’s findings and order. Id. Because
the court set forth findings, we look to those findings to determine whether the
court abused its discretion. See id. The findings will not be set aside unless
clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any
facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. Further, we will not set
aside the judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly
erroneous when unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions thereon.
Id.
[5] Scisney asserts the court’s findings are not supported by the evidence, that the
court abused its discretion in finding that the Adamses were the most suitable
persons to be guardians of Child, that he is the most stable party in this matter
and the most suitable person to be named guardian of Child, and that it would
be in Child’s best interest for him to be named guardian. He argues that he
requested the power of attorney documents but never received them, those
documents were not offered into evidence, and the finding in paragraph 8 of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 6 of 14
trial court’s order is not supported by evidence. He argues that the evidence
does not support the court’s finding in paragraph 18 and that, if these findings
were to be set aside, the remaining evidence most favorable to the Adamses
would not support the court’s determination. He also asserts the evidence does
not support the findings in paragraphs 7 and 14 of the court’s order. Scisney
further argues that he is clearly the most suitable party to be named guardian
over his own grandchild. In support of his argument, he points to his housing
and room for Child, the length of his marriage and residence in his house, the
fact an elementary school is located approximately one-quarter of a mile from
his home, his employment teaching autistic children part time, and that he is
the only relative who has petitioned to be appointed guardian. He also argues
that the Adamses deceived Child’s family and friends by posting fake crowd-
sourcing websites to raise money in the name of Child, have an unstable
income, and were evicted during the proceedings in this case.
[6] The Adamses maintain that the trial court did not err in naming them as the
guardians of Child and correctly determined they were suitable persons to be
appointed under Ind. Code § 29-3-5-4(2). They argue the court was not
required to enter special findings and that the evidence supports the court’s
findings. They assert that the GAL’s report was admitted into evidence,
contained a copy of the power of attorney executed by Mother and Connor,
and included information gathered from family members of Mother which
substantiate the claim that Mother desired for Child to be in their custody. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 7 of 14
Adamses also maintain that Scisney’s argument is simply a request to reweigh
the evidence and reassess the credibility of the witnesses.
[7] The guardianship statutes provide for the appointment of guardians for minors.
See Ind. Code § 29-3-5-1. Ind. Code §§ 29-3-5 set forth proceedings for the
appointment of a guardian, and Ind. Code § 29-3-5-3 provides that, if it is
alleged and the court finds that the individual for whom the guardian is sought
is an incapacitated person or a minor and the appointment of a guardian is
necessary as a means of providing care and supervision of the physical person
or property of the incapacitated person or minor, the court shall appoint a
guardian under the chapter.
[8] At the time of the December 2016 hearing, Ind. Code § 29-3-5-4 provided:
The court shall appoint as guardian a qualified person or persons
most suitable and willing to serve, having due regard to the
following:
(1) Any request made by a person alleged to be an
incapacitated person, including designations in a
durable power of attorney under IC 30-5-3-4(a).
(2) Any request contained in a will or other written
instrument.
(3) A designation of a standby guardian under IC 29-3-
3-7.
(4) Any request made by a minor who is at least
fourteen (14) years of age.
(5) Any request made by the spouse of the alleged
incapacitated person.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 8 of 14
(6) The relationship of the proposed guardian to the
individual for whom guardianship is sought.
(7) Any person acting for the incapacitated person
under a durable power of attorney.
(8) The best interest of the incapacitated person or
minor and the property of the incapacitated person
or minor.
(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 194-2017, § 7 (eff. Jul. 1, 2017)).2
[9] Ind. Code § 29-3-5-5 provided:
(a) The following are entitled to consideration for
appointment as a guardian under section 4 of this chapter
in the order listed:
(1) A person designated in a durable power of attorney.
(2) A person designated as a standby guardian under IC
29-3-3-7.
(3) The spouse of an incapacitated person.
(4) An adult child of an incapacitated person.
(5) A parent of an incapacitated person, or a person
nominated by will of a deceased parent of an
incapacitated person or by any writing signed by a
parent of an incapacitated person and attested to by
at least two (2) witnesses.
2
The 2017 amendment inserted a new subsection (2) and redesignated former subsections (2) to (8) as
subsections (3) to (9). The new subsection (2) provides: “(2) Any request made for a minor by: (A) a parent
of the minor; or (B) a de facto custodian of the minor, including a designation in a power of attorney under
IC 30-5-3-4(b) or IC 30-5-3-4(c).”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 9 of 14
(6) Any person related to an incapacitated person by
blood or marriage with whom the incapacitated
person has resided for more than six (6) months
before the filing of the petition.
(7) A person nominated by the incapacitated person
who is caring for or paying for the care of the
incapacitated person.
(b) With respect to persons having equal priority, the court
shall select the person it considers best qualified to serve as
guardian. The court, acting in the best interest of the
incapacitated person or minor, may pass over a person
having priority and appoint a person having a lower
priority or no priority under this section.
(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 194-2017, § 8 (eff. Jul. 1, 2017)).
[10] The court, pursuant to Ind. Code § 29-3-5-4, must give due regard to the best
interest of a minor and, acting in the best interest of the minor, may pass over a
person having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no
priority under Ind. Code § 29-3-5-5. In re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d at
353. The key consideration, in essence, in selecting a guardian for Child is
whether the choice of guardian is in Child’s best interest. See id.
[11] To the extent Scisney contests the trial court’s findings in paragraphs 7, 8, 14
and 18 of its June 13, 2017 order, we observe that Tamara testified that the
Children had come into her care and custody on March 20, 2016, and that
Mother had contacted her and Saleem shortly after the Children were born.
The GAL’s report indicated that Mother was overwhelmed with the idea of
single parenthood prior to the birth of the Children, that she attended the same
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 10 of 14
church as the Adamses, and that she had approached the Adamses as potential
persons who might adopt the Children. We further observe that the GAL’s
report stated that, “[t]o ensure that they had the full ability to the extent
reasonably necessary to provide all the care that might be necessary in the short
time that they were supposed to have the children, the Adams[es] requested that
they be given power of attorney for the children and health power of attorney”
and “[t]hey received and kept the executed documents (which were also signed
by the putative father, despite his legal claim as a father/parent being tenuous,
if not nonexistent), and the GAL reviewed these during the home visit.”
Guardian Ad Litem Exhibit I at 5. The GAL’s report included attached
executed documents including a power of attorney and health powers of
attorney dated in March 2016 and signed by Mother which granted attorney-in-
fact powers to the Adams[es] to act on behalf of Child.3 Tamara testified that
she works from home using a customer service system and phone, that she has
the ability to care for the Children while working, and that her office is in the
room where the Children take their naps, and Saleem indicated he is employed
as a customer service agent for a company which provides tax return
preparation assistance.
[12] Further, the GAL’s report indicated that Roberta Edwards, the Children’s
maternal grandmother, stated that she was somewhat surprised and upset that
her daughter had not considered her for guardianship but instead went straight
3
The Power of Attorney for Child instrument was also signed by Connor.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 11 of 14
to the Adamses, that in any event she could not accept care or custody of the
Children, that she was of the opinion that Scisney has been verbally abusive to
Mother, that she had observed Mother crying and upset after speaking with
Scisney on the phone a few times, that Mother had unequivocally expressed a
desire for the Adamses to have and hopefully adopt the Children, and that they
allowed her and any of her extended family to see the Children. The report also
indicated that Crista Spiller, Mother’s cousin, stated that Scisney “was the last
person to find out from [Mother] about the pregnancy and that [Mother] had
stated to her that [Scisney] was the very last person on earth that she would
want to have her children” and that “[s]he recalled that [Scisney] had told
[Mother] he would disown her if she ever got pregnant, and that he did in fact
do so when he found out.” Id. at 9-10. The report further indicated that
Scisney stated he had counseled his daughter not to become pregnant out of
wedlock and having such “bastards” would be wrong and greatly disappoint
him, that Mother would become upset at this fatherly advice, and that in no
way was the interaction ever abusive or less than fatherly or loving. Id. at 12.
The GAL’s report, in its summary, indicated that it was widely acknowledged
that Mother desired that the Children be placed with the Adamses. We cannot
say that the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support the
court’s findings in paragraphs 7, 8, 14 and 18 of its order.
[13] The record further reveals that the court admitted documentary evidence and
testimony related to the suitability of the Adamses and Scisney as guardians
and the considerations set forth in Ind. Code §§ 29-3-5-4 and -5. The court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 12 of 14
admitted evidence regarding the parties’ financial resources, employment and
earnings, and the stability of those resources and earnings. It also heard
testimony regarding the Adamses’ care of the Children, the health histories of
the Children, the history and stability of the Adamses’ housing, and that Go
Fund Me funds were established to solicit donations for the Children and
Mother.4 The court also heard testimony regarding Scisney’s home and room
for the Children, his marriage and children, his proximity to an elementary
school, and his work with children and other work. The reports regarding
Mother’s relationship with Scisney and her desire for the Children to be placed
with the Adamses were also before the court. Mother and Connor executed a
Power of Attorney for Child in favor of the Adamses with respect to the care of
Child on March 28, 2016. The court was able to review and consider the
evidence, including the evidence related to the parties’ resources and families
and to Mother’s wishes, in exercising its discretion in determining the most
suitable persons to be appointed as the guardians of Child under the
circumstances. Scisney has not shown that the trial court’s findings are not
supported by the record or that the court’s judgment is not supported by its
findings.
4
The GAL’s report attached copies of a Go Fund Me webpage indicating that $300 had been raised for
Children and a similar page indicating that $135 had been raised for Mother. The Go Fund Me page for
Mother indicates it was established or sponsored by Edwards, and the GAL testified that the Adamses
indicated that the funds were transferred to their personal account.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 13 of 14
[14] Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the December 5, 2016
hearing, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
appointing the Adamses as the guardians of Child.
Conclusion
[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court naming the
Adamses as guardians of Child.
[16] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-GU-1921 | May 11, 2018 Page 14 of 14