McCune factors in Indiana

2016Then in K.I., this Court approved of the four McCune factors, and took the additional step of declaring that a grandparent-visitation order “must address” those factors in its findings and conclusions. 903 N.E.2d at 462 (emphasis added [in In re M.L.B.]).

2016McCune, 783 N.E.2d at 757 ; see also K.I. ex rel J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind.2009) (approving the four McCune factors and requiring grandparent visitation order to address-the factors in its findings and conclusions). [23] In Schaffer , this court- extended “the parental presumption and special weight accorded to parents in an initial grandparent visitation proceeding” to parents in “an initial third[-]party stepparent visitation proceeding.” Schaffer, 884 N.E.2d at 427 . 3 We, too, extend the parental presumption and special weight afforded parents to the case before us.

2019Here, we are not confronted with a child custody dispute or an initial petition for grandparent visitation in which the factors enunciated in McCune v. Frey, 783 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), would apply.7 Mother 7 The factors “commonly known as the McCune factors” are: (1) the presumption that a fit parent’s decision about grandparent visitation is in the child’s best interests; (2) the special weight that must be given to a fit parent’s decision regarding non-parental visitation; (3) some weight given to whether a parent has denied or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2115 | Ja

2019Here, we are not confronted with a child custody dispute or an initial petition for grandparent visitation in which the factors enunciated in McCune v. Frey, 783 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), would apply.7 Mother 7 The factors “commonly known as the McCune factors” are: (1) the presumption that a fit parent’s decision about grandparent visitation is in the child’s best interests; (2) the special weight that must be given to a fit parent’s decision regarding non-parental visitation; (3) some weight given to whether a parent has denied or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2115 | Ja

2016In re Visitation of M.L.B., 983 N.E.2d 583, 586 (Ind.2013) (citing McCune, 783 N.E.2d at 757-59 , and reordering the McCune factors). 11 As our supreme court has explained, the “first three required factors implement the constitutionally protected right of fit parents to make child rearing decisions, and reflect the significant burden of proof grandparents must carry to override those decisions.” Id. at 587. [31] Because the trial court’s order did not explicitly address the first three McCune factors, Parents contend that the order was insufficient.

2016In re Visitation of M.L.B., 983 N.E.2d 583, 586 (Ind.2013) (citing McCune, 783 N.E.2d at 757-59 , and reordering the McCune factors). 11 As our supreme court has explained, the “first three required factors implement the constitutionally protected right of fit parents to make child rearing decisions, and reflect the significant burden of proof grandparents must carry to override those decisions.” Id. at 587. [31] Because the trial court’s order did not explicitly address the first three McCune factors, Parents contend that the order was insufficient.

2016See Hicks, 884 N.E.2d at 873-74 .

2016See Hicks, 884 N.E.2d at 873-74 .

2016McCune, 783 N.E.2d at 757 ; see also K.I. ex rel J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind.2009) (approving the four McCune factors and requiring grandparent visitation order to address-the factors in its findings and conclusions). [23] In Schaffer , this court- extended “the parental presumption and special weight accorded to parents in an initial grandparent visitation proceeding” to parents in “an initial third[-]party stepparent visitation proceeding.” Schaffer, 884 N.E.2d at 427 . 3 We, too, extend the parental presumption and special weight afforded parents to the case before us.

2012Ramsey v. Ramsey, 863 N.E.2d 1232, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court must comply with statutory requirements regarding findings and conclusions and with McCune factors).

2012Ramsey v. Ramsey, 863 N.E.2d 1232, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court must comply with statutory requirements regarding findings and conclusions and with McCune factors).

2007See In re Paternity of P.E.M., 818 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (stating that in McCune “we held that when entering a decree granting or denying grandparent visitation, the trial court must set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing [the four factors]” (emphasis added)); Megyese v. Woods, 808 N.E.2d 1208, 1216 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (“The trial court expressly entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon, therefore satisfying the requirements of T.R. 52 and I.C. § 31-17-5-6, so we must determine whether the trial court complied with the more specific requirements of McCune.

2007See In re Paternity of P.E.M., 818 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (stating that in McCune “we held that when entering a decree granting or denying grandparent visitation, the trial court must set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing [the four factors]” (emphasis added)); Megyese v. Woods, 808 N.E.2d 1208, 1216 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (“The trial court expressly entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon, therefore satisfying the requirements of T.R. 52 and I.C. § 31-17-5-6, so we must determine whether the trial court complied with the more specific requirements of McCune.