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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT