ILNews

Automatic modification violates custody statute, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court’s order automatically awarding custody of a minor child to the father was reversed by the Indiana Court of Appeals on the grounds the lower court’s decision violated the state’s custody modification statute.

The Tippecanoe Circuit Court issued a provisional order that primary physical custody would be awarded to the father of the minor child, C.A., if the mother did not relocate to Indiana by March 31, 2013.

Mother and father met and had C.A. while in high school. The couple never married but successfully co-parented the child until the mother moved to South Carolina to complete a college degree. Father continued visiting C.A. and paying monthly child support.

The mother finished her degree and opted to remain in South Carolina. Finding that permanent relocation to South Carolina was not in C.A.’s best interest, the trial court ordered that if the mother did not move back to Indiana by March 31, 2013, the father would be awarded primary physical custody on April 1, 2013.

In In re the paternity of C.J.A.: G.C. (mother) v. T.A. (father), 79A02-1302-JP-137, the Court of Appeals reversed the order. The court ruled that the language ordering the change in custody be automatically modified was inconsistent with the requirements of the state’s custody modification statute, Indiana Code 31-14-13-6.

However, Judge Elaine Brown dissented, arguing the trial court’s order was not a final judgment and had not disposed of all claims. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over this appeal and should have dismissed.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT