May, J.
B.D. and L.H.C., adoptive parents of P.H., appeal the grant of post-adoption visitation to P.H.’s biological uncle, J.H. They present four issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred when it granted J.H. visitation. We reverse.
….
An order is void ab initio if the trial court lacks the authority to provide the relief ordered under any set of circumstances. M.S. v. C.S., 938 N.E.2d 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The trial court lacked authority to grant post-adoption visitation rights to J.H., as he is not within any statutory category of persons entitled to visitation rights. See Ind. Code § 31-19-16-2 (birth parents of adopted children); Ind. Code § 31-19-16.5-1 (siblings); Ind. Code § 31-17-5-9 (grandparents); and see In re Guardianship of J.E.M., 870 N.E.2d 517, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting one who has had a “custodial and parental relationship” with a child may later seek visitation with the child but our Supreme Court has expressed the opinion that the “custodial and parental relationship” right to visitation should extend only to stepparents). “A visitation award without a cognizable right to visitation constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Tinsley v. Plummer, 519 N.E.2d 752, 754-755 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (great-aunt with limited pre-judicial intervention contact with minor did not met threshold requirement for award of visitation).
As the trial court lacked authority to grant post-adoption visitation rights to J.H., the portion of its order granting post-adoption visitation to J.H. is void ab initio.
Reversed.
BAKER, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.