BROWN v. REUILLE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Lisa Ann Brown appeals the Wells Superior Court's denial of her petition to modify her visitation with her grandchild. For the reasons set out below, we do not reach the merits of Brown's appeal.

[2] We dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In December 2023, Brown filed a petition to modify her visitation with her eldest grandchild. Following a hearing on March 13, 2024, the trial court entered its order denying that petition. More than thirty days later, on April 18, Brown filed her notice of appeal with this court.

Discussion and Decision

[4] On March 13, 2024, the trial court issued its order denying Brown's petition to modify visitation with her grandchild. Brown then failed to file a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Court of Appeals within thirty days of the entry of that order in the chronological case summary, as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1). Therefore, her notice of appeal was untimely, and she has forfeited her right to appeal. Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(5); In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014) (“a party forfeits its right to appeal based on an untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal”).

[5] While our Supreme Court held in In re O.R. that we may, despite forfeiture, address the merits of an appeal where “extraordinarily compelling reasons” exist, Brown makes no such argument here. Id. at 971. Indeed, her pro se Appellant's brief ¹ is rife with violations of our appellate rules. For instance, she has not set out a standard of review, and her argument section is devoid of citations to supporting legal authority. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). And, in any event, Brown's argument in her brief simply amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.² See, e.g., Fergason v. Brooks, 189 N.E.3d 1102, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (stating review of a trial court's order on a petition to modify grandparent visitation is for an abuse of discretion).

[6] For all these reasons, Brown has forfeited her right to appeal, and we dismiss.

[7] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.

2.   The Grandparent Visitation Act provides that “[t]he court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-17-5-7. In her brief on appeal, Brown does not even mention the issue of the child's best interests.

Mathias, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.