ILNews

COA affirms joint legal custody

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a dissolution court's decision to grant joint legal custody of two minor children to the parents, finding the lower court followed Indiana statute in granting the custody.

In Diana Gonzalez v. Edward Gonzalez, No. 64A04-0712-CV-733, Diana Gonzalez argued the dissolution court erred in granting her legal custody to make health care decisions for two minor children, and in giving her ex-husband Edward Gonzalez legal custody over educational and religious decisions.

Shortly before Diana filed for divorce, Edward was excommunicated from the church where the family attended services and where the children were enrolled in school. Members of the congregation are not to associate with those who have been excommunicated; Edward wanted the children to attend a different church and school.

Diana asserted the dissolution court "ignored" the statutory requirements of Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-17. Diana had physical custody of the two children and argued that the term "custodian" used in the section applied to the person with physical custody of the child, and according to the statute, she should be able to make the decisions regarding education and religion.

But the appellate court disagreed, finding the term custodian in the statute applies to the legal custodian, not physical custodian, of the child, wrote Judge Edward Najam. In addition, during the final custody hearing, Edward's request for legal custody of the two children was the functional equivalent of a "motion" under subsection (b) of the statute, which allows for limitation of a custodian's authority, wrote the judge.

The joint legal custody arrangement is in the best interest of the two children because there is evidence if Diana had educational and religious legal custody, she would enroll the children in a school and church in which their father had been excommunicated. Allowing Edward to enroll the children in a different school and church is what's best to allow for a healthy relationship with their father, the court found.

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