A.J.L.B. v. Alvarenga

224 N.E.3d 345

In the Matter of the Paternity of A.J.L.B., a Minor, BY his next friend Grisel Bonilla LEMUS, Appellant-Petitioner,

v.Jaime Lazo ALVARENGA, Appellee-Respondent

Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-JP-1436

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed December 13, 2023

Appeal from the Bartholomew Superior Court, The Honorable Jonathan L. Rohde, Judge, Trial, Court Cause No. 03D02-2305-JP-2187

Attorney for Appellant: Alexander E. Budzenski, Indianapolis, Indiana

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Following the entry of the trial court’s judgment granting the paternity petition filed by Grisel Bonilla Lemus (Mother), Mother filed two motions. First, she filed a motion to correct error, in which she asked the trial court to amend the judgment to add findings that are required for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. The trial court denied the motion, stating that Mother had not asked for the findings in her petition or at the hearing on the petition. Mother also filed a motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence seeking to amend the paternity petition to add a request for the findings required for SIJ status. The trial court also denied that motion.

[2] Mother now appeals. She argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to correct error because the requested SIJ findings were sufficiently before the court. She also asserts that the trial court erred in denying her motion to amend the pleadings because the evidence at trial supported amendment. We agree with Mother on both issues, and therefore we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Mother’s motions and issue a new judgment with the requested SIJ findings.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 4, 2023, Mother filed her paternity petition, in which she alleged the following: Mother resides in Columbus, Indiana; A.J.L.B. (Child) was born in February 2018 in Honduras; Jaime Lazo Alvarehga (Father) is Child’s biological father and is identified as such on Child’s birth certificate; Mother and Father have never resided together; Father has not communicated with or provided financial support for Child for nine years; Father’s exact whereabouts are unknown; Mother seeks establishment of paternity and to be awarded sole legal and physical custody of Child; Child’s best interest is served by granting the petition because Father "has abandoned [C]hild in that he has never been a part of [Child’s] life and has never provided any type of economic support," and "it is in the Child’s best interest that [he] not be returned to [his] home country as there is no one there that can properly care for [him], and the country is extremely dangerous." Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12-13. Mother requested a hearing "to adjudicate this Petition to establish paternity, to grant to her sole legal and physical custody of the minor [C]hild, and for all other proper relief in the premises." Id. at 13. Along with the petition, Mother filed Child’s birth certificate, Father’s consent and waiver of service and notice, and Father’s affidavit. In his affidavit, Father attested that he did not have any contact with or provide financial support for Child, that Father’s country is "very violent … and there is also a lot of poverty," and that it is in Child’s best interest that Mother have full custody. Id. at 21.

[4] On May 25, 2023, the trial court held a hearing with Mother, her counsel, and a court-appointed interpreter present. The court took judicial notice of Mother’s peti- tion and the documents filed with it. Mother testified that she separated from Father shortly after Child’s birth, that Father had not had contact with or provided financial assistance to Child, and that Father and Child do riot have a relationship. Mother explained that she brought Child to the United States when he was six years old because it was not safe in Honduras. Mother testified that she had lived in Columbus for approximately five years with Child, who was currently in fourth grade, and that Mother worked full time in a factory. In addition, Mother testified that she believed that Father had abandoned Child and that' it is in Child’s best interest to remain in Indiana under her care. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court informed Mother’s counsel that it had the proposed order and would take the matter under advisement.

[5] The proposed order included findings regarding paternity, custody, and parenting time, as well as the following two findings that are the subject of this appeal:

19. This Court is a state court with juvenile jurisdiction according to IC § 31-21-5-1,¹ and it now places child under the custody of child’s Mother, Grisel Bonilla Lemus, an individual appointed by the Court, who is hereby appointed as the sole legal and physical custodian of [Child].

20. [Child] is an unmarried minor who has been abandoned according to IC § 31-19-9-8,² by his biological father, who has not had contact with child, nor provided economic support for child, for approximately 10 years. Child is unable to care for his person, and child’s reunification with his father is not, possible at this time due to the abandonment. Under Indiana law, it is in child’s best, interest to not be returned to Honduras but rather to stay here with [Mother], where [Mother] can continue to care for child, due to the fact that there is no one in Honduras who can properly care for the child, in addition to the fact that the country is extremely dangerous and Child would be unable to care for himself due to his minority.

Id. at 33. Later that day, the trial court entered the judgment granting Mother’s petition. The judgment included findings that Father had not had contact with or provided financial support for Child for approximately ten years and that it was in Child’s best interest for Mother to have sole legal and primary physical custody of Child. In sum, the judgment included the findings in the proposed order except for findings 19 and 20.

[6] On May 27, 2023, Mother filed her motion to correct error. Mother stated that Child was working to resolve his immigration status, which included an SIJ status petition, and that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requires that the judgment include specific language regarding certain findings. Mother requested that the judgment be amended to add the findings with the required language (findings 19 and 20) and stated that the amendment to the judgment did not require additional findings beyond those it already contained to support the language required by the USCIS.

[7] On May 31, 2023, the trial court issued an order denying Mother’s motion to correct error on the basis that neither Mother nor her counsel had requested the findings with the language needed for SIJ status in Mother’s petition or during the hearing.

[8] On June 14, 2023, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 15(B), Mother filed her motion to amend the pleadings. Mother acknowledged that the proposed order that she had filed with the court before the final hearing requested determinations regarding the Child’s best interest that had not been specifically requested in the paternity petition, but she explained that she did not purposefully omit the requested determinations from the petition in an attempt to deceive or conceal. Mother asserted that she provided sufficient testimony at the final hearing for a ruling on all the requested determinations in the proposed order, and she requested that "the pleadings be amended as the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby." Id. at 36. The same day, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[1–3] [9] As an initial matter, we note that Father did not file an appellee’s brief. "When an appellee fails to submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of developing arguments, and we apply a less stringent standard of review; that is, we may reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie error;" In re Paternity of Mendoza Bonilla, 127 N.E.3d 1181, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Prima facie error means "at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Willis v. Dilden Bros., Inc., 184 N.E.3d 1167, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Atkins v. Crawford Cnty. Cleric’s Off., 171 N.E.3d 131, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)), trans. denied. "This less stringent standard of review relieves us of the burden of refuting arguments advanced in favor of reversal where that burden properly rests with the opposing party." Id.

[4, 5] [10] Mother appeals the denials of her motion to correct error and her motion to amend the pleadings.³ "A trial court’s rulings on a motion to correct error and on a motion to, amend the pleadings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Perkins v. Brown, 901 N.E.2d 63, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law." Poiry v. City of New Haven, 113 N.E.3d 1236, 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

[6] [11] Both of Mother’s motions sought to secure a final judgment with findings required for Child to seek SIJ status. SIJ is a classification under federal law that allows a qualifying resident alien child the potential to attain lawful permanent residency in the United States. In re Guardianship of Luis, 114 N.E.3d 855, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.11). Congress created the SIJ classification "to protect abused, neglected, and abandoned immigrant youth through a process allowing them to become legal permanent citizens." Id. (quoting In re J.J.X.C., a Child, 318 Ga.App. 420, 734 S.E.2d 120, 123 (2012)).

[7–9] [12] Although the final decision regarding whether a child qualifies for SIJ status is made by the federal government, the process for obtaining SIJ status requires "the collaboration of state and federal systems." Id. at 858 (quoting In re Mansol N.H., 115...