Crone, J.
Case Summary
H.M.B. (Mother) and J.T.J. (Stepfather) (collectively Appellants) bring this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order granting the petition to transfer venue filed by B.J. (Father). Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in granting transfer. We agree and therefore reverse.
….
Appellants assert that Marion County is a preferred venue pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 75(A) and Indiana Code Section 31-19-2-2, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion by transferring the case…
Indiana Trial Rule 75(A) governs venue and specifies,
[U]pon the filing of a pleading or a motion to dismiss allowed by Rule 12(B)(3), the [trial] court … shall order the case transferred to a county … selected by the party first properly filing such motion or pleadings if the court determines that the county … where the action was filed does not meet preferred venue requirements [and the] county selected has preferred venue[.]
Rule 75(A) then lists ten categories that are considered preferred venue. Trial Rule 75(A) “does not create a priority among [the categories] establishing preferred venue.” Strozewski, 36 N.E.3d at 500. “Preferred venue may lie in more than one county, and if an action is filed in a county of preferred venue, change of venue cannot be granted.” Id. One category of preferred venue is “the county where a claim in the plaintiff’s complaint may be commenced under any statute recognizing or creating a special or general remedy or proceeding.” Ind. Trial Rule 75(A)(8). We have held that “Subsection (8) adopts special venue statutes into the regulatory scheme of T.R. 75.” MacLeod v. Guardianship of Hunter, 671 N.E.2d 177, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied (1997). “Subsection (8) retains the ‘statutory’ venue as an alternative venue, thereby avoiding any conflict.” Id. (quoting In re Trust of Johnson, 469 N.E.2d 768, 772 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984), trans. denied (1985)).
Adoption proceedings are governed by Indiana Code Article 31-19. With regard to filing an adoption petition, Indiana Code Section 31-19-2-2 provides as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), an individual who seeks to adopt a child less than eighteen (18) years of age must, by attorney of record, file a petition for adoption with the clerk of the court having probate jurisdiction in the county in which:
(1) the petitioner for adoption resides;
(2) a licensed child placing agency or governmental agency having custody of the child is located;
(3) the attorney maintains an office; or
(4) the child resides.
….
(c) The county in which the petition for adoption may be filed is a matter of venue and not jurisdiction.
(Emphases added). [Footnote omitted.]
Appellants contend that Section 31-19-2-2 is a special venue statute to which Trial Rule 75(A)(8) applies and therefore establishes preferred venue in an adoption proceeding…
Here, like the statute at issue in Muneer, Section 31-19-2-2 dictates where an adoption petition is to be filed. We conclude that Section 31-19-2-2 is a special venue statute to which Trial Rule 75(A)(8) applies. [Footnote omitted.] Thus, preferred venue lies in any county where the petition is to be filed under Section 31-19-2-2. Appellants filed their adoption petition in the county where their attorney maintains an office in compliance with Section 31-19-2-2. As that is a county of preferred venue pursuant to Trial Rule 75(A)(8), change of venue may not be granted. We conclude that Appellants have made a prima facie showing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Father’s petition to transfer venue. Therefore, we reverse.
Reversed.
Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.