Worrell v. Elkhart County Office of Family and Children
Indiana Supreme Court
704 N.E.2d 1027 (1998)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Michael and Jacintha Worrell (plaintiffs) fostered three brothers before the boys were placed together in another foster home. Later, Michael and Jacintha wanted to visit their former foster children and filed three petitions, seeking visitation with each brother. A trial court ruled that, as former foster parents, Michael and Jacintha did not have standing to seek visitation, and the petitions were dismissed. Michael and Jacintha appealed. An appellate court reversed, holding that Michael and Jacintha had met a threshold requirement for standing of having a parental and custodial relationship with the brothers. The appellate court remanded, requiring the trial court to decide the case on the merits. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer of the case. Michael and Jacintha argued that the relationship they had with the brothers as their foster parents was sufficient to give them standing to seek visitation. The Indiana Court of Appeals had previously developed a test for third-party visitation with a stepchild that limited visitation solely to stepparents following a divorce or the death of the stepchild’s natural parent. The court of appeals stated that it had no intention of awarding rights of visitation to a host of unrelated parties who decided they wanted to see a child.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shepard, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.