The Indiana Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling October 16, 2025, establishing that mothers cannot challenge paternity after previously stipulating to it in court proceedings, affirming grandparent visitation rights under Indiana's Grandparent Visitation Act.
In *Jennifer O'Connell v. Donna Clay*, the court held that Jennifer O'Connell was equitably estopped from denying the paternity of Jeffrey Clemens after she had previously stipulated to his paternity in an agreed visitation order. The decision allows paternal grandmother Donna Clay to proceed with her petition for court-ordered visitation with her deceased son's child.
The case centers on a child born in July 2013 to unmarried parents O'Connell and Clemens. Clemens' name was never listed on the birth certificate, and he died approximately 18 months after the child's birth. Following Clemens' death, his mother Clay sought visitation rights with her grandchild under Indiana's Grandparent Visitation Act.
Under the Grandparent Visitation Act, a paternal grandparent may petition for visitation with a grandchild born out of wedlock only if the child's father has "established paternity in relation to the child." This statutory requirement became the central legal issue when O'Connell attempted to challenge Clay's standing to petition for visitation.
The dispute began when Clay filed a petition seeking court-ordered visitation with her grandchild. O'Connell initially entered into an agreed visitation order that included stipulations regarding Clemens' paternity. However, she later attempted to dismiss Clay's petition by arguing that paternity had never been properly established, despite her previous stipulations.
Justice Goff, writing for the majority, applied principles of equitable estoppel to resolve the conflict. The court held that O'Connell's previous stipulations to Clemens' paternity in the agreed visitation order precluded her from asserting otherwise in subsequent proceedings. "In line with well-established principles of equitable estoppel, we answer that question in the affirmative," Justice Goff wrote in the opinion.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents parties from taking positions that contradict their previous statements or conduct when others have reasonably relied on those representations. In this case, the court found that O'Connell's stipulations regarding paternity created reasonable reliance that she could not later contradict.
Chief Justice Rush and Justice Massa joined the majority opinion in full. Justice Molter concurred in part and in the judgment, filing a separate opinion joined by Justice Slaughter, though the specific details of the partial concurrence were not detailed in the available court documents.
The case originated in Porter Superior Court under the Honorable Mark A. Hardwick, Magistrate, and proceeded through the Indiana Court of Appeals before reaching the state's highest court. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 24, 2025, before issuing its decision in October.
The ruling has significant implications for grandparent visitation rights in Indiana, particularly in cases involving unmarried parents where the father has died. The decision clarifies that parties cannot strategically challenge paternity after previously acknowledging it in court proceedings, providing greater certainty for grandparents seeking to maintain relationships with their grandchildren.
For paternal grandparents in similar situations, the ruling establishes important precedent regarding the establishment of paternity requirements under the Grandparent Visitation Act. The court's application of equitable estoppel principles suggests that formal paternity proceedings may not always be necessary if paternity has been acknowledged through other legal proceedings.
The decision also reinforces the importance of consistency in legal proceedings and the courts' willingness to prevent parties from taking contradictory positions that could prejudice other parties who have relied on previous representations.
The case highlights the complex intersection of family law, paternity issues, and grandparent rights in modern family structures. As more children are born to unmarried parents and family dynamics continue to evolve, courts must balance the rights of biological parents with the interests of extended family members seeking to maintain relationships with children.
The ruling affirms the trial court's decision and allows Clay to proceed with her visitation petition under the Grandparent Visitation Act. The Supreme Court's unanimous decision provides clear guidance for lower courts handling similar disputes and establishes precedent for future cases involving grandparent visitation rights where paternity questions arise.
This decision represents the latest development in Indiana's ongoing evolution of family law jurisprudence, particularly regarding the rights of grandparents and extended family members in maintaining relationships with children after the death of a parent.