ILNews

COA rules in favor of mother in contentious custody battle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s decision awarding a mother primary custody of her child, after a joint custody arrangement between the mother and father deteriorated.

In Paternity of A.S.; B.S. v. E.M., No. 82A01-1006-JP-291, the father, B.S., argued that that the mother should have been held in contempt for withholding parenting time. But the appeals court stated that both mother and father – who violated the custody agreement when he recorded the couple’s telephone conversations – could have been found guilty of contempt. Because the trial court did not find either parent in contempt, it did not abuse its discretion, as both parties were treated equally, the COA held.

The mother, E.M., gave birth to the couple’s daughter, A.S., in August 2007. In 2008, E.M. filed a petition to establish paternity of A.S., and the father filed a cross-petition to establish paternity and custody. B.S., a resident of Evansville, was originally granted parenting time every other weekend. In December 2008, the couple agreed to joint custody. The mother, who lives in Eureka, Mo., and B.S. agreed that they would meet about halfway – in Mount Vernon, Ill. – to facilitate A.S.’s transportation to Missouri and Indiana, and the child would stay at each parent’s home for one week at a time. But an ensuing series of miscommunications and missed meeting times or telephone calls led to a rapidly deteriorating relationship between the parents.

In April 2009, E.M. filed a petition for a protective order in the Family Court of St. Louis County, Mo., after she found bruises on the child she thought were indicative of abuse. E.M. obtained a temporary order, but a caseworker found the abuse allegation was unsubstantiated. The father was never served with the protective order, and the record does not reflect that a hearing was held. In May 2009, the father filed a motion titled “Emergency Petition for Custody or in the Alternative, Parenting Time and Order to Appear” in Vanderburgh Superior Court.

The mother filed a motion in response, seeking to modify the father’s parenting time. It was at that hearing that he first learned of the abuse allegations.

The father recorded phone conversations he had with the mother. Two recordings, one from May 31, 2009, and one from August 28, 2009, were played on the record. In his appeal, the father claimed that statements he had made after the mother hung up were not relevant to the case, but the appeals court found that his inflammatory statements showed a lack of willingness to co-parent A.S. The court also held that granting the mother sole custody would be beneficial for A.S., as she could spend more time in educational programs in Missouri. The appeals court found no reason to disallow the father from being granted make-up parenting time and remanded to the trial court to determine how and when that time should be made-up. The COA affirmed the trial court’s findings in all other respects, with Chief Judge Margret Robb dissenting.  

In an eight-page dissent, Chief Judge Robb wrote that she believed the court should modify custody orders only when a substantial change in circumstances has put the child at risk. She wrote that she would have reinstated joint custody and ordered the couple to work out their differences for the sake of the child.

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