A E v. A L, et al.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 1 of 10
Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take
any action in reliance upon this memorandum decision until it is certified.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value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.
I N 	T H E
Court of Appeals of Indiana
In re the Adoption of N.L., Sek.L., and Sen.L. (Minor
Children),
A.E.,
Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
A.L. and M.L.,
Appellees-Respondents
October 16, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-AD-888
Appeal from the Johnson Superior Court
The Honorable Peter R. Nugent, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
41D02-2405-AD-000025

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 2 of 10
41D02-2405-AD-000026
41D02-2405-AD-000027
Memorandum Decision by Judge Felix
Judges Foley and DeBoer concur.
Felix, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] 	N.L., Sek.L., and Sen.L. (collectively, “Children”) are the biological children of
A.E. (“Mother”) and D.C. (“Father”). Mother placed Children with their
paternal grandparents A.L. and M.L. (“Grandparents”), and after two years of
caring for Children, Grandparents petitioned to adopt them. Mother contested
the adoptions, but the trial court determined her consent was unnecessary and
granted the petition. Mother now appeals and raises one issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred by granting Grandparents’ adoption petition.
[2] 	We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] 	While Mother was pregnant with twins Sek.L. and Sen.L.—who were born on
January 29, 2022—she “struggl[ed] with caring for” N.L.1 and her oldest child
1 N.L. was born on November 28, 2020.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 3 of 10
Av.E.2 Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 39. N.L. began “stay[ing] with
[Grandparents] more frequently and for progressively longer periods of time.”
Id. at 38. In November 2021, Mother placed Av.E. with a relative; Av.E. “was
delivered with no clothes other than what she was wearing and Ten Dollars
($10.00) in cash.” Id. at 39. Around the same time, Mother placed N.L. with
Grandparents, “where [N.L.] would largely stay up through the time of the
birth of the twins.” Id. at 38–39.
[4] 	Once Children were in Mother’s care in March 2022, “Mother almost
immediately struggled” because she lacked “financial resources as well as the
requisite emotional strength to care for three children under the age of two.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 40. In May 2022, Mother faced eviction, so she
“reached out to” Grandparents for assistance with Children. Id. at 41. On May
18, Mother and Grandparents “agreed” that Grandparents “would temporarily
care for [C]hildren until such time as Mother could address her mental health
issues and find a more stable and secure path in life to provide for [C]hildren.”
Id. Shortly thereafter, Grandparents petitioned for guardianship of Children,
and Mother consented thereto.
[5] 	Throughout 2022, “Mother’s mental health deteriorated significantly,” and
“things became very tense” between her and Grandparents. Appellant’s App.
Vol. II at 41. Mother “would become frustrated with [Grandparents] because
2 Av.E. has a different father than Children and was not subject to these adoption proceedings.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 4 of 10
of issues surrounding [Father] and his relationships with other women.” Id. In
June, Mother “largely disappeared.” Id. Between June 19 and December 27,
“Mother had no contact with [Grandparents] via text message whatsoever.” Id.
And Mother saw Children on only two occasions: June 8 and July 4.
[6] 	In February 2023, “Mother went inpatient at Hendricks Behavioral Health for
mental health related issues.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 42. Thereafter,
Mother “resumed some degree of communication with [Grandparents].” Id.
Mother visited Children seven times that summer. Sometime after the last visit
on August 19, Mother was once again facing eviction “and could not have
[C]hildren because her electricity had been turned off.” Id. “Mother agreed
that she was not in a position to see” Children, id.
[7] 	While Children were in Grandparents’ care, Mother had at least 12 different
jobs, all of which were “very short-lived,” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 43, and at
least 8 different residences. Mother also “struggled with the very basic yet
necessary task of having reliable transportation”—she often used ride share
services to travel to and from medical appointments and work; she purchased a
used vehicle but was unable to fix it when it “became inoperable”; and her
license was suspended. Id. at 44.
[8] 	On May 16, 2024, Grandparents filed a petition to adopt Children. Mother
contested the adoptions. After a hearing in July 2025, the trial court
determined Mother’s consent to the adoptions was unnecessary. In support
thereof, the trial court entered the following relevant findings and conclusions:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 5 of 10
37. In terms of actual visits, from the time the children went to
live with [Grandparents] on May 18, 2022, through the date
[Grandparents] filed their Petition[] to adopt in May of 2024, . . .
Mother physically saw the children a total of nine times . . . .
38. [A]s of the date of the final hearing in this cause in July of
2025, Mother has not seen the children physically in nearly two
years.
* * *
40. In spite of the obvious difficulty in maintaining employment,
Mother admitted that while the children were in the care of
[Grandparents], she did have income with which to provide
financial assistance for the benefit of her children. . . . Mother
testified that the only financial assistance she gave to “the
children” largely consisted of contributions to [Father]’s jail
commissary account while he was incarcerated. [A]t most
Mother gave [Grandparents] approximately $30 on a couple of
different occasions as well as allowed them to utilize her WIC
benefits for a short period of time after receiving the children. . .
.
* * *
46. The evidence in this case reveals that Mother clearly loves
and cares for her children. That fact is clearly evident from the
manner in which she speaks about her children.
47. However, love and affection only go so far as the evidence
clearly and convincingly lea[d]s this Court to the conclusion that
Mother is fully overwhelmed by the very basic tasks necessary to
simply take care of herself and does not have the capacity to
provide for these three children. In addition to exhibiting

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 6 of 10
significant housing and employment instability, Mother does not
own a vehicle, does not have a valid driver’s license, and does
not have a bank account. In short, Mother clearly struggles with
the most basic tasks necessary to maintain a life for herself much
less three young children.
48. The evidence demonstrates that Mother failed to
communicate significantly with her children for a period of
greater than one year when able to do so. From the time the
children were placed into the care of [Grandparents] on May 18,
2022[,] until the date [Grandparents] filed their Petition[] to
Adopt in May of 2024, Mother visited the children a total of nine
times, most of which occurred between July of 2023 and August
of 2023. Mother had no contact at all with the children from
July 4, 2022[,] until June of 2023. These children are
significantly young in age and absences of communication and
contact of this length of time are significant in the lives of the
children.
49. Simi[l]arly, the evidence shows that Mother has failed to
financially support her children for a period of greater than a year
when able to do so. Mother testified that she had at least some
income to provide to [Grandparents], however, the evidence
showed again that the amounts given amount to nothing more
than a “token effort” of support.
50. The evidence demonstrates that, at best, Mother’s efforts at
visiting with and supporting her children from the time they were
placed into [Grandparents’] care amount to nothing more than
“token efforts.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 7 of 10
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 43–46. In December 2025, the trial court granted
Grandparents’ adoption petition. This appeal ensued.3
Discussion and Decision
The Trial Court Did Not Clearly Err by Granting Grandparents’
Adoption Petition
[9] 	Mother challenges the trial court’s order granting Grandparents’ adoption
petition. Our review of this decision is deferential:
We generally show considerable deference to the trial court’s
decision in family law matters because we recognize that the trial
judge is in the best position to judge the facts, determine witness
credibility, get a feel for the family dynamics, and get a sense of
the parents and their relationship with their children. So, when
reviewing an adoption case, we presume that the trial court’s
decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of
rebutting this presumption. And we will not disturb that decision
unless the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial
judge reached an opposite conclusion. We will not reweigh
evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Rather, we
examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s decision.
In re Adoption of I.B., 163 N.E.3d 270, 274 (Ind. 2021) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
3 Grandparents do not include in their brief a Statement of Issues, Statement of Case, or Statement of Facts.
Because of this omission, we assume Grandparents agree with Mother’s Statement of Issues, Statement of
Case, and Statement of Facts. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(B)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 8 of 10
[10] 	Mother specifically challenges the trial court’s decision that her consent to
Children’s adoptions was not required. In reaching this conclusion, the trial
court entered Indiana Trial Rule 52 findings and conclusions. We review Trial
Rule 52 findings and conclusions for clear error, which means “we determine
whether the evidence supports the court’s findings and whether those findings
support the court’s judgment.” Norris v. Norris, 275 N.E.3d 505, 509 (Ind. 2026)
(citing Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2016)). A decision is clearly
erroneous “only if the findings lack factual support in the record or if the
judgment applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts.” Id. (citing
Wysocki v. Johnson, 18 N.E.3d 600, 603–04 (Ind. 2014)). Furthermore, we
accept as true any findings that Mother does not challenge on appeal. See R.M.
v. Ind. Dep’t Child Servs., 203 N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing
Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992)).
[11] 	Natural parents have special protections in adoption proceedings, and we
“strictly construe our adoption statutes to preserve the fundamentally important
parent-child relationship.” I.B., 163 N.E.3d at 274 (citing In re Adoption of N.W.,
933 N.E.2d 909, 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). However, there are limitations on
these special protections. See id.; Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8. For instance, “‘under
carefully enumerated circumstances,’ the adoption statutes allow ‘the trial court
to dispense with parental consent and allow adoption of the child.’” I.B., 163
N.E.3d at 274 (quoting N.W., 933 N.E.2d at 913).
[12] 	Here, Grandparents alleged that Mother’s consent was unnecessary because (1)
she “abandoned or deserted” Children, I.C. § 31-19-9-8(a)(1), by making “only

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 9 of 10
token efforts to support or to communicate” with them, id. § -8(b), “for at least
six (6) months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition for
adoption,” id. § -8(a)(1); (2) Children have been in Grandparents’ custody for at
least one year and Mother has either “fail[ed] without justifiable cause to
communicate significantly with” Children “when able to do so” or “knowingly
fail[ed] to provide for the care and support of” Children “when able to do so as
required by law or judicial decree,” id. § -8(a)(2); and (3) Mother “is unfit to be
a parent” and it is in Children’s “best interests” for the trial court to “dispense[]
with” Mother’s consent, id. § -8(a)(11). Grandparents only needed to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that one of these circumstances existed. I.B., 163
N.E.3d at 274–75 (citing I.C. §§ 31-19-10-1.2(a), -0.5); I.C. § 31-19-9-8(a)
(requiring only one basis for dispensing with consent). The trial court
determined Grandparents proved all three.4
[13] 	Mother argues she did not fail without justifiable cause to communicate
significantly with or support Children for at least one year. Mother does not
challenge the trial court’s conclusions that (1) she abandoned Children for at
4 Although the trial court did not use the words “abandon,” “unfit,” and “best interests” in its findings and
conclusions, it clearly determined that (1) Mother abandoned Children for at least six months before
Grandparents filed their petition, see Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a)(1), and (2) Mother is unfit to parent Children
and it is in their best interests for the trial court to dispense with her consent, see id. § -8(a)(11). As to the
former, the trial court found that Mother did not see Children “physically in nearly two years,” Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 43; she failed to “communicate significantly with” and “financially support her children for a
period of greater than a year,” id. at 45; and she made only “token efforts” to support and visit with Children,
id. at 45–46. As to the latter, the trial court found that “Mother is fully overwhelmed by the very basic tasks
necessary to simply take care of herself and does not have the capacity to provide for these three children.”
Id. at 45. The trial court thus concluded that Mother’s consent was not necessary under Indiana Code
section 31-19-9-8(a)(1) and (a)(11).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-AD-888 | October 16, 2026 	Page 10 of 10
least six months before Grandparents filed their petition, and (2) she is unfit to
parent Children and it is in their best interests for the trial court to dispense with
her consent. Because Mother does not challenge these bases for her consent
being unnecessary, we need not address her arguments concerning her
unjustifiable failure to communicate significantly with and support Children for
at least one year. Regardless, those arguments are merely requests for us to
reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See
I.B., 163 N.E.3d at 274 (quoting E.B.F. v. D.F., 93 N.E.3d 759, 762 (Ind. 2018)).
[14] 	Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not clearly err by dispensing with
Mother’s consent to Children’s adoptions, so it did not clearly err by granting
Grandparents’ adoption petition. We affirm the trial court on all issues raised.
[15] 	Affirmed.
Foley, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Jayden Tannehill
AJM Legal LLC
Martinsville, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Michael R. Auger
Franklin Family Law
Franklin, Indiana