ILNews

Judges affirm change in custody

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the modification of a custody order giving the father primary custody of his son, finding the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in deciding that the boy’s physical and mental/academic maturation constituted a substantial change warranting the change in custody.

In In Re the Paternity of C.S.: M.R. (Mother) v. R.S. (Father), No. 53A01-1108-JP-381, mother M.R. appealed the change in modification that gave father R.S. primary custody of their son, C.S. The parents were never married, but when they split up, they entered into an agreed entry, approved by the trial court, to share joint legal and equal physical custody of the boy. M.R., who is in the Active Army Reserves, took a job at Fort Knox. C.S. would split time with his mother there and his father in Bloomington. Both agreed that C.S. was ready to begin kindergarten, but M.R. wanted the boy to split his time between both locations so that he would be enrolled in two schools.

R.S. requested primary physical custody, which the trial court granted. The judge found the father’s more flexible schedule and the fact C.S. has lived in Bloomington his whole life in support of his decision. The judge also concluded that beginning kindergarten in 2011 – instead of waiting another a year as M.R. later argued – was in C.S.’ best interests.

The COA affirmed the trial court’s finding that C.S.’ academic needs and abilities have substantially changed and he has reached an age that warrants a change in physical custody. That change is clearly in C.S.’ best interests, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

The judges also found the trial court didn’t misinterpret Indiana Code 31-17-2-21.3, which outlines factors surrounding custody and active duty service. M.R.’s service doesn’t show the impermanency contemplated in the statute, wrote the judge, as she cannot be deployed to a combat zone.

The trial court didn’t err in relying on an updated custody evaluation.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT