Weissmann, J.
Today we are asked to decide a novel issue grounded in tragedy: whether a paternal grandmother, as personal representative of her deceased son’s estate, may file a wrongful death action against the maternal grandparents for the death by drowning of their two-year-old grandson. [Footnote omitted.] Finding the child wrongful death statute does not authorize a personal representative to file a wrongful death claim pursued but never filed by the deceased parent, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the maternal grandparents.
….
Paternal Grandmother claims her authority to sue under the CWDS arises from subsection (d) above as well as from Indiana Code § 29-1-13-3. The latter provides in relevant part:
Every personal representative shall have full power to maintain any suit in any court of competent jurisdiction, in his name as such personal representative, for any demand of whatever nature due the decedent or his estate or for the recovery of possession of any property of the estate . . . .
Paternal Grandmother essentially argues that Father, at the time of his death, was pursuing the wrongful death action as a custodial parent of D.N. under subsection (c) of the CWDS. She asserts that after Father’s death, she, as personal representative of Father’s estate, was authorized by subsection (d) of the CWDS to file the wrongful death action Father had pursued but not filed.
Mother and Maternal Grandparents contend Father was never “awarded” custody of D.N. and, therefore, Paternal Grandmother, as personal administrator, is not among the persons whom subsection (d) of the CWDS authorizes to “maintain” a child wrongful death lawsuit. They also assert Paternal Grandmother does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) because Father never filed a wrongful death lawsuit. In their view, subsection (d), at most, allows a personal representative to continue an action already filed, not to initiate it.
….
Strictly construed, the plain language of the CWDS authorizes three categories of people to “maintain” a child wrongful death lawsuit: 1) parents; 2) the child’s guardian; and 3) the personal representative of the estate of a person who had been awarded custody of the child. I.C. § 34-23-2-1(c), (d). To avoid any violation of a non-custodial parent’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, we have interpreted the CWDS “to permit noncustodial parents [as well as custodial parents] standing to bring an action for the wrongful death of a child,” despite contrary language in the CWDS. Chamness v. Carter, 575 N.E.2d 317, 319-21 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (interpreting an earlier version of the child wrongful death statute, then codified as Indiana Code § 34-1-1-8).
The parties agree Father could have filed the wrongful death action during his lifetime. Appellant’s Br., p. 15; Appellee’s Br., p. 14. Therefore, the only issue is whether subsection (d) authorized Paternal Grandmother, as personal representative of Father’s estate, to file the action after Father’s death. We conclude it does not.
When interpreting statutes, the plain language of the statute is “the first and often the last resort.” Murray v. Conseco, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 454, 460 (Ind. 2003). The plain language of the CWDS reflects a legislative intent to afford parents the sole right to decide whether to file a child wrongful death action except when both parents lack custody of the child at the child’s death.
This legislative intent is reflected plainly throughout the CWDS. First, the CWDS’s title—“Action by Parent or Guardian”—suggests wrongful death actions may only be filed by parents and guardians, not by grandparents who are not guardians. City of Alexandria v. Allen, 552 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (noting title of statute in determining its scope), reh. Denied. [Footnote omitted.]
The legislature’s focus on parents in the CWDS also is evident in its treatment of damages. The CWDS specifically limits damages recoverable in a child wrongful death action to those sustained by parents or, to a lesser extent, guardians…
Once damages are awarded under the CWDS, the statute effectively prevents virtually anyone but parents from collecting those monies….
These provisions of the CWDS evince a clear legislative intent to create a statute focused on recovery by parents and not other relatives or third parties. Of course, legislative intent also can be gleaned from what the statute does not say, and such silence speaks volumes here. City of Lawrence Utils. Serv. Bd. v. Curry, 68 N.E.3d 581, 585 (Ind. 2017). Unlike Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1, the general wrongful death statute (GWDS), the CWDS does not expressly authorize the personal representative of the deceased person—an adult under the general wrongful death statute and a child under the CWDS—to bring a wrongful death action. I.C. § 34-23-2-1. Incorporating that language from the GWDS into the CWDS would have been one means of allowing third parties to file a child wrongful death lawsuit, but the legislature effectively barred it.
The clear legislative intent of the CWDS was to give parents the exclusive right to file a wrongful death action except where both parents lacked custody of the child at the time of the child’s death. The only person other than a parent who is specifically named in subsection (c) of the CWDS is a child’s guardian, who would have custody only when the parents do not. [Footnote omitted.] In other words, only people with custody of the child at the child’s death are authorized under subsection (c) to pursue a wrongful death action. If both parents die before any child wrongful death action is filed and at least one of the parents had custody of the child at the child’s death, the CWDS does not authorize anyone to file a wrongful death action after the parents’ deaths. I.C. § 34-23-2-1(c)(3), (g)-(h).
Given the directives of the CWDS, Paternal Grandmother had no standing to file a wrongful death action as to D.N. See I.C. § 34-23-2-1. After Father died, Mother was the only person authorized by the statute to file the action, and she chose not to do so. Just because Paternal Grandmother disagreed with Mother’s inaction does not mean Paternal Grandmother may sue in Mother’s place, as the CWDS does not expressly permit that action. See Durham, 745 N.E.2d at 759 (noting strict construction of CWDS is required). Paternal Grandmother essentially is asking this Court to “engraft new words onto a statute or add restrictions where none exist,” an invitation we must decline. Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1026 (Ind. 2013).
II. Probate Statute Does Not Authorize Paternal Grandmother’s Filing
The probate statute upon which Paternal Grandmother relies—Indiana Code § 29-1-13-3—does not call for a different result. That statute provides Paternal Grandmother, as personal representative of Father’s estate, the right to sue for damages owed Father at his death. See I.C. § 29-1-13-3. Father had a right under the CWDS to file a wrongful death lawsuit during his lifetime. I.C. § 34- 23-2-1(c). However, Father’s right to file the lawsuit for the wrongful death of his child expired at Father’s death under the CWDS. I.C. § 34-23-2-1(c). As neither Father nor Mother ever filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Maternal Grandparents, Maternal Grandparents owed nothing to either Father or his estate as a result of D.N.’s death. Therefore, Paternal Grandmother, as personal representative of Father’s estate, had nothing to collect from Maternal Grandparents under Indiana Code § 29-1-13-3.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.