ILNews

Court prevents mother from relocating to Hawaii with daughter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with a trial court Wednesday that it is not in the best interests of a child to move to Hawaii with her mother and stepfather.

Mother H.H. and father A.A. were married, but separated when G.A. was born in 2006. They have both since remarried and A.A. has two children with his new wife, in addition to her children from a previous relationship.

Mother and her husband wanted to move to Hawaii after visiting on their honeymoon. She filed a notice of intent to relocate and before the court ruled, her husband J.H. accepted a job in Hawaii. The court denied her request, so she filed a second notice.  That was also denied.  The trial court ruled it was in G.A.’s best interest to stay in Indiana, pointing out the distance would make it difficult for her to see her father on a regular basis as she does now.

Mother appealed, and in H.H. v. A.A., 03A01-1308-DR-354, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The judges did find the trial court erred in ruling that the mother did not show a good faith and legitimate reason for proposing the relocation. Her husband acquired a job in Hawaii that would give them affordable benefits and he would work fewer hours. The appellate court found the mother’s stated reason for the move – to live and create a family life with J.H.  – was sufficient to prove the request was made in good faith.

But they agreed that the move was not in the girl’s best interests. The COA pointed to the trial court record that showed G.A. was thriving in school and was close to her father, his parents, and her half siblings and step siblings. They also noted that even though mother offered to pay for G.A. to visit her father, she would not have any income when she first moved because she would be starting a medical clinic that would take a few years to become profitable.
 

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT