IN RE: the Guardianship of: Y.S.I.A.M.A.S. (Minor Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Johnathan Scott (“Father”) appeals the trial court's order denying his request to terminate John and Jill Kreis's (“Grandparents”) guardianship of Y.S.I.A.M.A.S. (“Child”). As Father did not comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B), which governs permissive interlocutory appeals, we do not have jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, we dismiss Father's appeal.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Child was born to Julie Kreis (“Mother”) and Father in November 2013. From birth until May 2019, Child lived with Mother in Texas and Indiana. Father was incarcerated for a portion of that time. In October 2019, Grandparents were granted guardianship of Child. Mother was granted limited parenting time and the trial court found “[Child] shall have no contact with [Father]. Should Mother allow any contact by phone, in person, or otherwise her parenting time shall be immediately supervised by [Grandparents] or their appointee.” (Appellees’ Appl. Vol. 2 at 33.)

[3] From 2022 to 2024, Father filed various petitions asking the trial court to terminate Grandparents’ guardianship or, in the alternative, allow Father parenting time. In December 2022, the trial court granted Father's request for parenting time and ordered him to participate in supervised therapeutic parenting time with Child for one hour every other week. Subsequent orders increased Father's supervised parenting time with Child. In October 2024, the trial court ordered Father to participate in one hour of community supervised parenting time every other week.

[4] On March 12, 2025, Father filed a “Motion to Terminate Guardianship and/or Supervised Parenting Time and/or Modify Parenting Time[.]” (Id. at 68) (original formatting omitted). The trial court held a hearing on the matter on August 6, 2025. At the end of the hearing, the trial court stated, “I'm not going to make a ruling today ․ So what I'm going to do, other than in the ruling, they'll be the interlocutory clause so that, you know, anybody and everybody can appeal it.” (Tr. Vol. II at 188.) In addition, the trial court said, “regardless of what the order is next week, there will be this order certified for interlocutory appeal.” (Id. at 189.)

[5] On August 19, 2025, the trial court issued an order increasing Father's parenting time with Child to unsupervised visitation for four hours on alternating weekends with no overnights. The trial court denied Father's motion to terminate Grandparents’ guardianship of Child. At the end of its order, the trial court stated, “the Court sets this matter for a status hearing on the 7th day of November 2025 at 9:30 AM ․ the Court certifies the herein order for interlocutory appeal.” (Appellees’ App. Vol. 2 at 80.)

Discussion and Decision

[6] Father argues the trial court erred when it denied his request to terminate Grandparents’ guardianship of Child. However, Grandparents argue we should dismiss Father's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Father did not file a motion in this court under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B) asking us to accept jurisdiction within thirty days following the trial court's order certifying the matter for interlocutory appeal. Father contends the trial court's order was a final judgment and thus he was not required to request our permission to accept the matter for interlocutory appeal.

[7] Appellate Rule 14 addresses our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals. Unless an appeal is an interlocutory appeal of right pursuant to Appellate Rules 14(A) and 14(D),¹ a party must request permission to file a discretionary interlocutory appeal under Appellate Rule 14(B). Under Appellate Rule 14(B), a party must first receive certification from the trial court to pursue an interlocutory appeal and then move for this court to accept jurisdiction of the appeal. The motion requesting our acceptance of the interlocutory appeal “shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the date the trial court's certification is noted in the Chronological Case Summary.” Rule 14(B)(2)(a).

[8] At the August 6, 2025, hearing on Father's motions, the trial court said twice that it intended for the order on the matter to be appealable as an interlocutory order. In its August 19, 2025, order granting Father's request to modify parenting time and denying his motion to terminate Grandparents’ guardianship, the trial court set a status hearing and stated, “the Court certifies the herein order for interlocutory appeal.” (Appellees’ App. Vol. 2 at 80.) Father filed his notice of appeal on September 16, 2025, and indicated he was appealing a final order,² despite the trial court's many statements that the order was interlocutory and its certification of its August 2025 order was of an interlocutory order. Father did not file a motion for us to accept jurisdiction under Rule 14(B). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. See, e.g., Anonymous Doctor A v. Sherrard, 783 N.E.2d 296, 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (appeal dismissed when appellant failed to file an Appellate Rule 14(B) motion after the trial court's certification of its order).

Conclusion

[9] Because Father did not file a motion for this court to accept jurisdiction over the case as an interlocutory appeal, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

[10] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The parties do not argue Appellate Rules 14(A) or 14(D) apply here.

2.   As our Indiana Supreme Court stated in O'Connell v. Clay:A final appealable order is one that disposes of ‘all issues as to all parties, ending the particular case and leaving nothing for future determination. An interlocutory order, by contrast, refers to a judgment made before a final hearing on the merits and which requires something to be done or observed but does not determine the entire controversy.267 N.E.3d 994, 999 (Ind. 2025). Here, the trial court set a status hearing on the matter for November 2025, and thus it “require[d] something to be done” and did not “determine the entire controversy.” Therefore, it is not a final appealable order.

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Felix, J., concur.