# In Re the Guardianship of A.L.C.

> Indiana Court of Appeals · March 12, 2009 · 902 N.E.2d 343

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9520350

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF A.L.C., a Minor
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 12, 2009
- **Citations:** 902 N.E.2d 343; 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 398; 2009 WL 653039
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Baker
- **Judges:** Najam, Kirsch, Baker
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9520350

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a guardianship proceeding is essentially a child custody proceeding, which requires the trial court to consider child custody statutes and case law in addition to the guardianship statutes
- affirming the trial court’s guardianship appointment and 16 refusing to reweigh the evidence between the two competing parties seeking to be guardian over a minor

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9520350. Public record. Not legal advice.