ILNews

Child's 'home state' rules jurisdiction

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today Indiana courts have jurisdiction to modify custody agreements originally made in another state, as long as Indiana is considered the "home state" of the subject child.

In the case, In Re: The Marriage of Barbara Kenda and Boris Pleskovic, 71A03-0701-CV-34, Kenda, the mother of A.P.K., appealed a custody modification order awarding Pleskovic, the child's father, custody of A.P.K. Kenda contends the trial court in Indiana did not have jurisdiction to modify and abused its discretion in modifying the custody agreement when it awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of A.P.K. to Pleskovic.

The parents of A.P.K. were divorced in 2002, while residing in the District of Columbia. The D.C. court ordered the mother to have sole physical custody and the parties to have joint legal custody of A.P.K.; the court also granted the father parenting time.

During the next few years, Kenda relocated several times, including to South Bend in August 2002 to become a professor at the University of Notre Dame. Until the summer of 2005, Pleskovic made arrangements to visit the child and often would take care of A.P.K. when Kenda was busy with work or sick. In the summer of 2005, after Pleskovic returned from a trip with A.P.K. to Slovenia, the mother refused to allow Pleskovic to have unsupervised parenting time because of the child's behavioral changes. Pleskovic received a letter from Kenda's attorney in Washington, D.C., informing him to hire an attorney and he was not to speak with Kenda about visitation.

In October 2005, Kenda filed a motion in St. Joseph Superior Court to modify non-custodial parenting time. The motion also noted the court had jurisdiction to modify the custody agreement pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and Indiana Code 31-17-3 because Indiana is the child's "home state" and the child and his mother have a significant connection to Indiana and there is available evidence in the state concerning the child's present and future care, protection, and relationships.

The father filed a petition for modification of custody, parenting time, and child support and request for custody evaluation. The doctor who conducted the evaluation recommended the mother have physical custody of A.P.K.

The mother filed a notice of intent to move to London, England, in May 2006 with A.P.K. On May 5, 2006, the trial court granted father's petition to prohibit the child from leaving St. Joseph County without a court order, so the mother left the child with a family friend while she relocated to London to begin a new job.

During a visit with the mother in London, she enrolled the child in school and tried to prevent the child from going back to the U.S., which spawned numerous court filings in Indiana and England. The father filed an emergency petition for change of custody, which the Indiana trial court granted.

The Court of Appeals cites the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and Indiana Code 31-17-3, in upholding the jurisdiction of Indiana courts to modify the custody order. Both parties have actively participated in proceedings in the court regarding the custody of the child and at the time the mother filed her original petition to modify the agreement, Indiana was her home state. The point of the UCCJA is to prevent parents from seeking favorable custody agreements in different jurisdictions. The Court of Appeals wrote the mother was not entitled to a reversal based on jurisdiction simply to "shop" for a more favorable forum.

In terms of the mother's appeal on the custody modification, a court may not modify a custody order unless it's in the child's best interest and there is a substantial change in one of several factors, such as the wishes of the child's parent or parents, the mental or physical health of all individuals involved, and evidence of domestic or family violence by either parent. The trial court noted a "substantial change in the relationship among the parties has occurred since the entry of the [Divorce] Decree", and that the mother's willful rebellion against the trial court's orders did play a significant part in the reasons for modifying custody. Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote in the 18-page opinion, "Fostering a child's relationship with the noncustodial parent is an important factor bearing on the child's best interest, and ideally, a child should have a well-founded relationship with each parent. When the custodial parent denies visitation rights to the other parent without evidence that the noncustodial parent is a threat to the child, it may be proper based upon these circumstances for the trial court to modify custody."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT