burden of rebutting presumption in Indiana

2023Accordingly, 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. [N.R. v. K.G. and C.G.], [(]In re Adoption of O.R.[)], 16 N.E.3d 965, 972-73 (Ind. 2014).

2020Discussion & Decision [16] “When reviewing adoption proceedings, we presume that the trial court’s decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.” In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 972 (Ind. 2014) (quoting In re Adoption of J.L.J., 4 N.E.3d 1189, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied).

2020Upon reviewing a trial court’s ruling in an adoption proceeding, “we presume that the trial court’s decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.” In re Adoption of J.L.J., 4 N.E.3d 1189, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

2020Discussion & Decision [16] “When reviewing adoption proceedings, we presume that the trial court’s decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.” In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 972 (Ind. 2014) (quoting In re Adoption of J.L.J., 4 N.E.3d 1189, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied).

2020Moreover, we generally give considerable deference to the trial court’s decision in family law matters because we recognize that the trial judge is in the best Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-AD-1172 | January 15, 2020 Page 8 of 14 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.” MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ind. 2005).

2018We generally give 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.” MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 , 1 We acknowledge that B.S. argues that the motions panel of this court “should have denied T.M.’s ‘Motion to Permit Deviation from the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure’ and dismissed his appeal given the court’s ‘strong posit

2014“Grandparents bear the burden of rebutting the presumption that [Mother’s] decision to deny visitation was made in [the Child’s] best interests.” Id. at 874-75 .

2014“Grandparents bear the burden of rebutting the presumption that [Mother’s] decision to deny visitation was made in [the Child’s] best interests.” Id. at 874-75 .

2012Grandparent Visitation "[If a parent is fit, a trial court is required to give special weight to the parent's decision regarding grandparent visitation.... [TJhis presumption is rebutta-ble and the petitioning grandparent has the burden of rebutting this presumption." Crafton v. Gibson, 752 N.E.2d 78, 98 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

2012Grandparent Visitation "[I]f a parent is fit, a trial court is required to give special weight to the parent's decision regarding grandparent visitation.... [T]his presumption is rebuttable and the petitioning grandparent has the burden of rebutting this presumption." Crafton v. Gibson, 752 N.E.2d 78, 98 (Ind. Ct.App.2001).

2014Id. at 258 . 32.

2014Id. at 258 . 32.

2018Id.; In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633, 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

2018In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633, 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). [9] “When reviewing adoption proceedings, we presume that the trial court’s decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.” In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 972 (Ind. 2014).

2024So, “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.” Id.

2024So, “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.” Id.

2020Id.

2018See also Commercial Coin Laundry Sys. v. Enneking , 766 N.E.2d 433 , 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (explaining that a "party attacking the judgment of a sister state has the burden of rebutting the presumption of validity and of showing that the sister state lacked jurisdiction"). [21] Here, after EBF obtained a confessed judgment in New York, it filed the foreign judgment enforcement petition at issue in this case to have Indiana recognize and enforce the New York confessed judgment.

2020And even if Judge Bergerson did have such information, Howell has not cited any authority for the proposition that information of this sort requires a change of judge. [7] As the State notes, “The law presumes that a judge is unbiased and unprejudiced,” Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 610 (Ind. 2001), reh’g denied, and the party claiming bias has the burden of rebutting that presumption, Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002).

2020And even if Judge Bergerson did have such information, Howell has not cited any authority for the proposition that information of this sort requires a change of judge. [7] As the State notes, “The law presumes that a judge is unbiased and unprejudiced,” Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 610 (Ind. 2001), reh’g denied, and the party claiming bias has the burden of rebutting that presumption, Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002).

2018Prima facie error is “error at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). [6] Our standard of review of adoption proceedings is well-settled: “When reviewing adoption proceedings, we presume that the trial court’s decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.” We generally give 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

2016See In re Estate of Allender, 833 N.E.2d at 533 .

2014See generally In re Visitation of C.L.H., 908 N.E.2d 320, 329 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (courts must give special weight to a fit parent’s decision to deny or limit grandparent visitation and grandparent^ seeking visitation bear the burden of rebutting the presumption that a fit parent’s decision to deny visitation was made in the child’s best interest); In re Visitation of C.S.N., 14 N.E.3d 753 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (“because grandparents do not have the legal rights or obligations of parents, they do not possess a constitutional liberty interest in visitation with their grandchildren.”).

2014Furthermore, the determination of whether a notice “substantially complied” with the statutory requirements “is a determination based on the facts and circumstances of the case and is a question of fact.” In re Sale of Real Prop. with Delinquent Taxes or Special Assessments, 822 N.E.2d 1063, 1074 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citing Kiskowski v. O’Hara, 622 N.E.2d 991, 992 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), reh’g denied, trans. denied) (emphasis added), trans. denied.

2014See Ransburg v. Kirk, 509 N.E.2d 867, 872 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (explaining that the burden of rebutting the presumption regarding the regularity of a tax sale and the validity of a tax deed is on the party challenging the tax deed and that the burden is not on the tax sale purchaser to prove compliance with the tax statutes), reh’g denied, Lenard, 425 N.E.2d at 214 (holding that a party’s allegations that the tax sale and notice statutes were not properly followed failed to rebut the prima facie evidence of the regularity and validity of all tax sale proceedings established by the certificate of

2014Rust v. Lawson, 714 N.E.2d 769, 772 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trails, denied.

2014Furthermore, the determination of whether a notice “substantially complied” with the statutory requirements “is a determination based on the facts and circumstances of the case and is a question of fact.” In re Sale of Real Prop. with Delinquent Taxes or Special Assessments, 822 N.E.2d 1063, 1074 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citing Kiskowski v. O’Hara, 622 N.E.2d 991, 992 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), reh’g denied, trans. denied) (emphasis added), trans. denied.

2014Duncan v. State, 975 N.E.2d 838, 844 (Ind.Ct.App.2012).