OPINION ON REHEARING
We issued our opinion in this appeal on May 5, 2006. In that opinion, we examined, in part, the propriety of the trial court's determination that P.W.J., i.e., the son of Phillip William Gray and Linda Sue Schachel, was emancipated at the age of eighteen. On appeal, Gray argued, in relevant part, that the trial court had abused its discretion by excluding the affidavit of P.W.J. (the "P.W.J. Affidavit"). In the Appellant's Appendix, Gray included a copy of the P.W.J. Affidavit, which was typewritten and unsigned. As a result, in our original opinion, we determined that the trial court had properly excluded the P.W.J. Affidavit because the affidavit did not constitute competent evidence under Indiana Trial Rule 11. See In re Paternity of P.W.J., 846 N.E.2d 752, 757-58 (Ind. Ct.App.2006).
On June 5, 2006, Gray filed a Petition for Rehearing arguing, in part, that we had "ignored the fact that the [P.W.J. Affidavit] ..., in the original court documents, was signed by P.W.J. and notarized." Appellant's Pet. Reh'g at 7. Specifically, Gray contends that "[i]n rejecting the [P.W.J. Affidavit] on the grounds that it was not signed, the Court of Appeals only looked at the unsigned copy presented by [Gray] for informational purposes only. The signed and notarized copy of the Affidavit existed in the Court Records, made available by the Marion County Circuit Count, which was completely ignored by the Court of Appeals." Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
However, the only verified affidavit included in the trial record is Gray's own affidavit, which concerns social security benefits.
We grant Gray's petition for rehearing for the sole purpose of clarifying this issue and affirm our original opinion in all other respects.
KIRSCH, C.J., and CRONE, J., concur.