BARNES, J.
“In the relation of parent and child the parent is assumed to be the dominant party.” Westphal v. Heckman, 185 Ind. 88, 84, 113 N.E. 299, 301 (Ind. 1916) (superceded by statute on another issue as stated in Matter of Estate of Banko, 622 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 1993)). However, recent cases have held that where certain adult children are caretakers for ailing parents, the children take on the dominant role. The question of which party has attained the position of the dominant party, under the 7 evidence, is a question for the trier of fact. Crider v. Crider, 635 N.E.2d 204, 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. [Footnote omitted.] “Where one seeks to show that the child is the dominant party, he must do so by showing the condition and situation of the parties, their treatment of each other, and other circumstances from which such ultimate fact may be inferred.” Westphal, 185 Ind. at 84, 113 N.E. at 301.
Recently, however, our court has held in several instances that as a caretaker, an adult child is in the dominant position in relation to ailing parents. The Meyer court dealt with an adult child, Paul, caring for an aging parent, Charles, and concluded in that case the parties’ roles were reversed. 854 N.E.2d at 60. Charles lived in a nursing home and Paul had taken over duties at the family farm. Paul visited Charles daily, took him to dinner frequently, and transported him to the attorney’s office when necessary. We concluded in Meyer, “By virtue of being his father’s caretaker, Paul, the child, is in the position of dominance.” Id. The court based its reasoning on Supervised Estate of Allender v. Allender, 833 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied, and Outlaw v. Danks, 832 N.E.2d 1108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
. . . .
Clearly, this is an issue that will garner continued attention as the baby boomer generation ages. We maintain that courts must proceed with caution in analyzing these situations and that an automatic presumption that any adult child who assists an aging parent is presumed to be in a dominant role and exert undue influence over that parent’s decisions is ill-advised. We caution that love, attention, and occasional assistance provided by an adult child typically and naturally arise from a sense of filial duty. It seems unreasonable for our courts to rely exclusively upon care, compassion, or generosity by an adult child for their ailing parent and then render such actions suspect. These relationships must be carefully examined in light of the surrounding circumstances before any conclusions regarding that child’s dominance and influence be made.
BAILEY, J., and MATHIA, J., concur.