ILNews

COA upholds mother’s relocation to Illinois

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court’s decision to allow a mother and her two children to move to Illinois after marrying her fiancé was not an abuse of discretion by the court because the father didn’t show how the move would have a negative effect on the children.

Kyle and Ara Dixon divorced in 2007, with Ara Dixon having physical custody of the parties’ children and Kyle Dixon receiving parenting time. In 2011, the mother filed notice of intent to relocate to Illinois due to her plans to get remarried and live with her new husband, who worked in Illinois.

Kyle Dixon is remarried and has one son with his new wife and two stepchildren. He participated in many activities with the children because of his flexible work schedule. It would take about three hours to drive to Ara Dixon’s new home in Illinois, but she testified that she’d be willing to continue alternating weekends with the father, allow the children to be in Indiana for holidays and accommodate extra parenting time when appropriate.

The trial court found that the mother’s desire to relocate was made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. The judge granted her request to relocate, which effectively denied Kyle Dixon’s motion to modify custody.

The children’s schedule will not change much due to the relocation, the Court of Appeals noted in Kyle W. Dixon v. Ara J. Dixon, 34A05-1206-DR-303, and Kyle Dixon didn’t present any expert testimony to show how the move would have a negative effect on the kids. The judges also weren’t persuaded by his argument that the relocation may cause conflicts with his ability to engage in parenting time with his children with Ara Dixon as the schedule of his son with his second wife may conflict with trips to see the children in Illinois.

The appellate court found the trial judge considered the factors set out in Indiana Code 31-17-2.2-1(b) in making its determination.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT