ILNews

COA: Court must hold another hearing on custody

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court may refuse to approve a settlement agreement entered into by parents regarding custody of minor children, the Indiana Court of Appeals pointed out Tuesday, but in this case, the court erred by not granting the father’s motion for a continuance regarding his mental health evaluation.

The judges ordered a new hearing on custody of M.S., the daughter of Kevin and Jennifer Stone. The two entered into a settlement agreement regarding custody and division of marital property and asked the court to approve it. But the judge decided not to approve the portion regarding custody, citing concerns about Kevin Stone’s mental health. He made threats to Jennifer Stone after the divorce was filed and communicated with her family, her neighbors and M.S.’s teacher that Jennifer Stone was a fraud, thief and liar. He also refused to communicate with her unless through their child.

Kevin Stone sought three continuances of the hearing on the custody issue so he could hire counsel and obtain a mental health evaluation that the judge ordered. But the judge denied his motions and ruled that Jennifer Stone should have sole custody of M.S., with Kevin Stone having supervised parenting time. The judge noted that she would consider the results of the evaluation at a later hearing. The evaluation found no reason that Kevin Stone shouldn’t have some custody of his child.

In Kevin C. Stone v. Jennifer M. Stone, 49A02-1210-DR-820, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial judge could reject the parties’ settlement agreement regarding child custody. The judges pointed to statements made by Kevin Stone that he gave up the marital residence so that he could have joint legal and physical custody of M.S. This is why courts must review agreements on child custody, to ensure children aren’t being used as bargaining chips, Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

“If a party is having second thoughts about the propriety of a child custody agreement, we do not see why a trial court should be prohibited from taking such reluctance into consideration when deciding how thoroughly to examine whether the agreement suits the child’s best interests, which is the ‘overriding’ concern in any dissolution where children are involved — a concern that trumps the interest in promoting the settlement of disputes,” he wrote.

But the judge abused her discretion in denying the continuance relating to Kevin Stone’s mental health evaluation. The judge had concerns about his mental health regarding custody and there was no evidence or testimony to support the findings made by the judge. A continuance wouldn’t prejudice Jennifer Stone, so the judges ordered a new hearing on custody.

The COA also reversed the portion of the order that Kevin Stone pay $5,000 in attorney fees to Jennifer Stone.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT