Najam, J.
Statement of the Case
The issue in this appeal is whether a grandparent visitation order over two children born out of wedlock survives after the children have been legitimized by the marriage of the children’s biological parents. We hold that it does not. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand with instructions.
….
The Act does not speak to whether existing grandparent visitation orders survive the subsequent legitimation by marriage of a child born out of wedlock. We thus begin our review of the Act as relevant here by first recognizing that Grandmother had lawfully obtained a visitation order under Indiana Code Section 31-17-5-1(a)(3), which permits a child’s grandparent to seek visitation rights if “the child was born out of wedlock.”
With a lawful order on that basis in place, the Act expressly contemplates two, and only two, circumstances in which such an order “survives” the subsequent assumption of a parental role over a child who is the subject of such a visitation order. First, Indiana Code Section 31-17-5-8(b) provides that, when a child is born out of wedlock, “[v]isitation rights provided for in section 1 . . . survive the establishment of paternity of a child by a court proceeding other than an adoption proceeding.” Second, Indiana Code Section 31-17-5-9 provides that visitation rights “survive the adoption of the child” by “[a] stepparent” or by “[a] person who is biologically related to the child as: (A) a grandparent; (B) a sibling; (C) an aunt; (D) an uncle; (E) a niece; or (F) a nephew.”
The Act expressly addresses those two circumstances in which a grandparent visitation order over a child born out of wedlock survives, which implies that such an order does not survive under other circumstances. As our Supreme Court has explained, “[u]nder the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when certain items or words are specified or enumerated in a statute then, by implication, other items or words not so specified or enumerated are excluded.” A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, 97 N.E.3d 606, 614 (Ind. 2018) (alteration and quotation marks omitted). Here, the Act does not include the subsequent marriage of a child’s natural parents as a circumstance in which an existing grandparent visitation order survives. Thus, we conclude that a grandparent visitation order does not survive the subsequent marriage of the natural parents of a child born out of wedlock.
….
In sum, the Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. Instead, Grandmother’s argument on appeal asks this Court to read words into the Act that are not there. We will not read the Act to say something it plainly does not say, and we will not disregard the words actually chosen by our General Assembly to strike the balance between allowing for grandparent visitation while also protecting a fit biological parent’s rights over his or her children. We hold that the plain language of the Act does not provide for the survival of an existing grandparent visitation order when the biological parents legitimize their children by their subsequent marriage. As such, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand with instructions to vacate the visitation order.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.