For a child, the person who takes on the responsibilities of a parent can become just as important as a biological parent. But when an unmarried couple splits, the emotional bonds built in the relationship don’t automatically translate into legally enforceable parental rights. This is the difference an Indiana man learned after an appeals court ruled that he was not entitled to court-ordered visitation with the daughter he helped raise with his former partner for eight years.In that situation, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s refusal of a petition by Jordan Fleschner to establish visitation with the daughter of his former partner, Rachel Scheid. The court ruled that Fleschner did not overcome a legal presumption that the mother’s decisions about her child’s welfare are in the child’s best interests.
A relationship that became family
Fleschner began dating Scheid in 2015, when her daughter was about 2 years old, the Indiana Court of Appeals said. The following year the couple moved in together, and as the relationship grew, Scheid and her daughter both began referring to him as the father of the child.Fleschner was heavily involved in the girl’s upbringing, including decisions about her education and medical care. Though the couple never married, Scheid considered him a father figure, according to court records.The relationship ended in 2023 after a physical altercation, leading the two to set up separate households. Fleschner’s relationship with the child, however, did not immediately cease with their separation.The Indiana Court of Appeals said Scheid originally agreed to stay in touch and the former couple followed an arrangement in which the child spent every other week with each of them. The arrangement lasted about two years, and included holidays spent with Fleschner’s family, and a week-long vacation.
One disagreement changes everything
In July 2025, the situation escalated when Fleschner came across a reference to self-harm in the diary of the then 12-year-old girl. He told Scheid what he had found, worried for her wellbeing.But the mother felt that reading the diary was an invasion of her daughter’s privacy. The incident upset the child, who stopped coming to Fleschner’s house. Though Scheid allowed a few dinner dates at first, communication between the two became harder and harder.Fleschner continued to contact the girl through another account she created on Discord that her mother didn’t know about, the Indiana Court of Appeals said. In their correspondence there was talk of possible adoption and he sent her packages secretly and suggested arrangements for him to meet her without Scheid knowing. Scheid requested a protective order after the messages were found and it was given in January 2026.
Why the court rejected his request
In September 2025, Fleschner filed a petition seeking third-party parental and visitation rights. In his petition, he originally asked for joint custody, but at the evidentiary hearing he asked for visitation.In March 2026 the trial court rejected his motion, concluding his conduct had eroded the mother’s parental authority.Fleschner appealed, claiming that his years of involvement, shared responsibilities for caring for the children, and continued contact with them after the separation entitled him to visitation.But the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that courts generally presume that fit parents act in the best interests of their children. A third party petitioner for visitation must overcome this presumption by sufficient proof.The appeals court also questioned if an unmarried former partner could establish the requisite legal standing under Indiana’s limited framework for third-party visitation.The lower court’s ruling was supported by Fleschner’s secret communications and attempts to undermine Scheid’s authority. No reversible error, we affirm the November 4, 2026 visitation denial.The ruling highlighted the significance of parental decision-making rights, noting that a long-standing emotional connection does not inherently create legally enforceable visitation rights for a former partner.Images Courtesy: istock
