dissenting.
I dissent from the majority's determination that Bailey may seek visitation rights under IND.CODE § 31-1-11.7-2 (1988 Ed.). Acts 1987, Pub.L. 293, § 7, which operates to give retroactive effect to IND. CODE § 31-1-11.7-2, has no application to Bailey. Her right to visitation was the subject of a former judgment that may not now be reached by retrospective legislation.
The controversy regarding Bailey's right to seek grandparental visitation had been reduced to judgment before the legislature enacted Acts 1987, Pub.L. 293, § 7. The legislature could not alter the outcome of the dispute once the rights of the parties had been settled by judgment. As this Court expounded in State ex rel. M.T.A. v. Ind. Rev. Bd. (1969), 144 Ind.App. 63, 253 N.E.2d 725:
"The General Assembly cannot interfere with a judicial determination. Article 8 § 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Without a doubt the General Assembly had every right to give prospective and retroactive effect to their [sic] legislation.... However, the at tempt to encroach upon the determination of a co-equal branch of government was an unwarranted and unconstitutional action by the General Assembly, and its application to the judgment of this court has no force and effect."
Id. at 88, 253 N.E.2d at 731-732.
While Acts 1987, Pub.L. 293, § 7 may otherwise permit retroactive application of IND. CODE § 31-1-11.7-2, the statute may have no such effect in Bailey's case. The judicial branch of government determined that Bailey's right to seek visitation terminated upon the adoption of Amy by Linda Menzie. In re Visitation of Menzie (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1225, 1227. Efforts by the legislature to change that outcome must be deemed ineffectual.
I vote to affirm the dismissal of the Petition for Grandparent Visitation.