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

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