IN RE: the Matter of the Guardianship of A.G.M. (Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Pedro Gomez Martin (“Gomez”) filed a petition for guardianship of his younger brother, A.G.M. (“Child”), who came to the United States from Guatemala in approximately 2023. After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition but determined that Child was not eligible to seek special immigrant juvenile status (“SIJS”). On appeal, Gomez argues that this determination is an abuse of discretion. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Child was born in January 2009. In December 2025, Gomez filed a petition requesting his appointment as Child's guardian.¹ Later that month, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for Child. In March 2026, the court held a hearing on the petition and took the matter under advisement.

[3] On March 25, the court issued an order with the following pertinent findings:²

3. [Child resides with Gomez in Plainfield.] Child is incapable of handling his person due to minority of age and is hereby found to be an incapacitated person under Indiana law.

4. Child currently relies on Gomez's medical, academic, and financial support. Gomez's appointment as Guardian is necessary to provide continued care and supervision of Child's physical person.

5. Gomez provided evidence that Child's biological parents ․ saved money to hire a “coyote” to help him enter the United S[t]ates.

6. Additionally, testimony revealed that the parents of Child had some trouble feeding and clothing Child.

7. Child began working at age 11 in the fields.

8. Child did go to school in Guatemala.

9. Child came to the United States when he was “14 or 15” and now lives with his brother.

10. Child has gone to school in the United States off and on and currently is 17 years old but has only 13 high school credit hours to his name making him a sophomore.

11. Child testified that he does not like to go to school because the bus comes too early.

12. At one point after his arrival in the United States, Child left his brother's home and went to live with an uncle.

13. When the uncle made Child go to school, Child returned to live with his brother.

14. Child's brother testified that he barely makes enough money to support himself and Child.

15. The [GAL] in this case testified that Child regularly missed school.

16. Gomez testified he is willing to provide all the financial, medical, educational, emotional, and other support for Child.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that:

․.

2. Based on the evidence presented, this Court declares Child a dependent and places him in the custody of Gomez pursuant to Indiana state law, including Ind. Code[ ] §§ 29-3-8-1, 29-3-8-2.

3. Child is incapacitated due to being below the age of majority under Indiana law.

․.

5. Gomez is the most qualified and suitable person available to serve as Guardian and is hereby appointed as Guardian of the Person of Child.

․.

8. The Court must now determine if Child qualifies for a [SIJS] finding.

9. In In re Guardianship of Xitumul, 137 N.E.3d 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), the Indiana Court of Appeals succinctly laid out the law and procedures a trial court should follow when considering a request for a finding of [SIJS] status:

Congress created the special immigrant juvenile (“SIJ”) status “to protect abused, neglected, and abandoned immigrant youth through a process allowing them to become legal permanent residents” despite their unauthorized entry into or unlawful presence in the United States. [In re Guardianship of Luis, 114 N.E.3d 855, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)] (quoting In the Interest of J.J.X.C., a Child, 318 Ga. App. 420, 734 S.E.2d 120, 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)). A “special immigrant” includes a person:

• who is unmarried,

• who [is] under the age of twenty-one,

• who is present in the United States,

• who has been legally committed to or placed in the custody of an individual by a juvenile court located in the United States,

• “whose reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law[,]” and

• “for whom it has been determined ․ that it would not be in the alien's best interest to be returned to the alien's ․ previous country of nationality[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)(1), (c)(2).

A state juvenile court determines whether the evidence supports the required findings, but the final decision regarding SIJ status rests with the federal government. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(iii). Thus, the process for obtaining SIJ status is “a unique hybrid procedure that directs the collaboration of state and federal systems.” Luis, 114 N.E.3d at 858 (quoting In re Marisol N.H., 115 A.D.3d 185, 979 N.Y.S.2d 643, 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)). The juvenile, or someone acting on his or her behalf, must first petition a state juvenile court to issue an order making the required findings. In re Marisol N.H., 979 N.Y.S.2d at 645. This is often accomplished by the filing of a guardianship petition or custody complaint. In re Dany G., 223 Md. App. 707, 117 A.3d 650, 654 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015). The state juvenile court, as the appropriate forum for child welfare determinations regarding abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and a child's best interests[,]” is then charged with making ․ the factual inquiry relevant to SIJ status and entering an order regarding its findings. Luis, 114 N.E.3d at 858 (quoting In re J.J.X.C., 734 S.E.2d at 124). Upon obtaining such an order, the juvenile can submit his or her application for SIJ status to the [United States Citizen and Immigration Services]. See id; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(d). If the application is granted, the juvenile may become a lawful permanent resident who is eligible to become a United States citizen after five years. In re Estate of Nina L. ex rel. Howerton, 2015 IL (1st) 152223, 397 Ill. Dec. 279, 41 N.E.3d 930, 935 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).

Id. at 951-52[.]

10. A state court's role in the SIJ process is not to determine worthy candidates for citizenship, but simply to identify abused, neglected, or abandoned alien children under its jurisdiction who cannot reunify with a parent or be safely returned in their best interests to their home country. In re Guardianship of [Avila] Luis, 134 N.E.3d 1070, 1073 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196, 121 A.3d 849, 857-58 (2015)).

11. The three findings a state court must make before a juvenile can seek [SIJS] status are:

(1) The juvenile has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or placed in the custody of a State agency or individual by a juvenile court located in the United States;

(2) “[R]eunification with 1 or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law”; and

(3) It is not “in the alien's best interest to be returned to the alien's ․ previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence[.]”

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i), (ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)[.]

12. The evidence and testimony presented in this case do not support the conclusion that Child has established the factors that would qualify him for [SIJS].

13. Child here meets the first criteria. He is under this Court's jurisdiction and has been declared incapacitated since he is a minor.

14. However, this Court does not find that Child has established that reunification with one or both of his parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment or any other similar basis.

15. Additionally, the Court finds that little evidence supports the conclusion that it is not in Child's best interests to be returned to his country of residence.

16. First, the Court finds no evidence that Child has been abused, neglected, abandoned or anything of the like.

17. To the contrary, testimony revealed that Child's parents saved money to support his coming to the United States. They paid someone to help him enter the United States.

18. This is the exact opposite of abandonment but is actual support of the child in an effort to find better educational and life opportunities.

19. Paying for your child to travel to a place with greater opportunity is not abusive, neglectful nor abandonment.

20. Although Child's parents let him travel alone, he was not unaccompanied. He had paid a guide with him.

21. Moreover, the parents’ actions in sending Child to the Unite[d] States are not neglectful. Neglect would arguably be letting the child suffer with no education.

22. That is not what the parents did here.

23. Instead, they took affirmative steps to try to get Child to [a] place where he may attain a better education.

24. This is not neglectful in any way but is what most any parent would do if in a similar position.

25. Additionally, there is no evidence of abuse in this case.

26. Child testified that he started working in the fields at 11 years old, but that he was still going to school as well.

27. Many a child, this writer included, have worked in fields, gardens, around the house, with parents at their businesses, star[t]ing at a very young age.

28. Not many years ago this was commonplace nearly everywhere in the world.

29. Teaching a good work ethic to a young person, letting them know the importance of helping their family, and showing them that things do not come easy should be considered a virtue, not a vice.

30. The parents here did not abuse the child. They treated him as a contributing member of the family and taught him valuable lessons about work and life.

31. To say that anything offered into evidence in this case supports the conclusion that reunification with one or both of the parents is not viable is wrong.

32. Child can return to his home country and go to school, work for his family, find another job, and generally make a life for himself like young people do all over the world.

33. Moreover, the Court does not find that sufficient evidence was presented to make a finding that it is not in Child's best interests to return to his native country.

34. Child is not availing himself of opportunities for study here in the United States. The Court finds he is lacking sufficient supervision.

35. He is skipping catching the bus and not going to school.

36. He left his brother's home when his brother told him school was starting.

37. Subsequently, he left his uncle's home when his uncle told him he had to start school.

38. He is almost 18 and is not making progress towards finishing his education.

39. His brother testified that he can barely support himself here on the money he earns, much les[s] his brother as well.

40. No evidence was presented that the child could not return to Guatemala now, or once he turns 18.

41. All of this taken together indicates that it is in Child's best interests to return home where his parents can both work to support him and make sure he finishes his education. Something thus far his brother has been unable to do.

42. Accordingly, the Court finds Child does NOT meet the criteria to seek SIJS.

43. This guardianship will expire when Child turns 18.

Appealed Order at 1-8 (some alterations and italics added). Gomez now appeals the trial court's SIJS determination.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Findings and orders issued in guardianship proceedings are within the trial court's discretion. Guardianship of Xitumul, 137 N.E.3d at 951 (citing In re Adoption of J.L.J., 4 N.E.3d 1189, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, and Ind. Code § 29-3-2-4(a)). “Accordingly, we review a trial court's findings for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law.’ ” Id. (quoting Adoption of J.L.J., 4 N.E.3d at 1194). “We do not reweigh the evidence; rather we consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the judgment.” Guardianship of S.S., 249 N.E.3d 656, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.K., 862 N.E.2d 686, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)).

[5] Gomez has no quibble with the trial court's recitation of the relevant background law regarding SIJS in its order. He does, however, contend that the court abused its discretion in finding that Child had failed to establish that reunification with one or both of his parents was not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or any other similar basis. Gomez notes that “viable” has been defined as “having a reasonable chance of succeeding[,]” Guardianship of Avila Luis, 134 N.E.3d at 1075 (citation omitted), and he asserts that Child's “evidence showed that reunification with his parents did not have a reasonable chance of succeeding.” Appellant's Br. at 22.

[6] We disagree. Child acknowledged having “memories of being hungry in Guatemala[,]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 8, but he was not asked to give a specific time frame for any period(s) of hunger that he experienced. When asked if his parents were “able to give [him] food or clothing[,]” he replied, “[W]hat I have to say is that we would have to work. Um I mean my dad when I was eleven took me to the fields and uh we would have to work in the fields and uh plant uh maize and uh it[’]s like that.” Id. This testimony indicates that farming was a family endeavor that enabled his parents to give him food and clothing.³ Child further testified that he went to school in Guatemala until age “[f]ourteen or thirteen,” and that he would “have been able to continue school if [he] didn't come to the United States[.]” Id.

[7] Gomez offered testimony that conflicts with some of the foregoing, but pursuant to our standard of review, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Guardianship of S.S., 249 N.E.3d at 660. The trial court found that Child “can return to his home country and go to school, work for his family, find another job, and generally make a life for himself like young people do all over the world[,]” Appealed Order at 7, and we cannot say that this finding was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's determination that Child does not meet the criteria to seek SIJS.⁴

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In the petition, Gomez averred that Child's parents had consented to the guardianship and waived any notice of hearing. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 16.

2.   We have replaced the trial court's references to “Minor Child” with “Child” and “Petitioner” with “Gomez.”

3.   At the very least, this testimony conflicts with Child's earlier testimony that his family “didn't have food or clothes.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 8. Child did not testify that farming was unduly taxing or that it interfered with his schooling in any way.

4.   Given our resolution of this appeal, we need not address Gomez's challenge to the trial court's best-interest determination.

Bailey, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.