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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT