ILNews

Court remands custody case for new hearing

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although all three Indiana Court of Appeals judges came to conclusion that the trial court should revisit its order to grant full custody of a child to her abusive father, the judges differed as how the trial court should have approached the matter.

In Anita (Handy) Oberlander v. Kevin Handy, No. 08A04-0903-CV-121, Anita Oberlander and Kevin Handy had a tumultuous and violent relationship which led to Oberlander relocating to South Carolina with her four children, one of which was Handy's daughter. After only three months of marriage, Oberlander filed for divorce and sought a protection order.

Before their final hearing, Handy's visitation with his daughter from another marriage was halted because of his behavior. He also continued to contact Oberlander despite a protection order and only stopped when he was ordered to under his probation for domestic battery and other charges as a result of an incident with Oberlander and a police chase.

Oberlander was unable to find an attorney through legal aid or attend the final hearing in Indiana because of financial constraints. She also claimed she feared for her and her daughter's safety. The trial court proceeded in her absence and ruled in Handy's favor, granting him full custody of A.H. Judge Patricia Riley noted in her dissent this was the same judge who ordered a stop to Handy's visitation with his other daughter. The trial court determined Oberlander had abandoned Handy and hindered visitation, and her conduct was "unconscionable."

Oberlander filed a request for relief from judgment because of fraud. The trial court ordered an investigation by the Department of Child Services, which recommended Oberlander have custody of the daughter and Handy have supervised visitation for the time being. The trial court denied Oberlander's request, finding she didn't prove fraud.

Chief Judge John Baker and Judge Ezra Friedlander upheld the trial court's decision to not grant relief pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 59 or 60. Her failure to appear precludes her from seeking relief from judgment and precludes her from making a valid argument the trial court actually committed an "error" that must be rectified, wrote Chief Judge Baker.

However, the majority believed the trial court had the option to treat her motion as a motion to modify the custody arrangement set for it its initial order. The majority remanded the matter for the trial court to revisit the case and weigh all the evidence to determine whether a modification of the current custody arrangement is warranted.

"We urge the trial court to look to the factors set forth in Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8 and apply those factors explicitly in its final custody order," he wrote.

In her dissent, Judge Riley wrote she would grant Oberlander's motion to correct error and remand for a new final hearing based on Walker v. Kelley, 819 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). She also would consider her motion to correct error to be without "procedural defect" because her motion did incorporate her affidavit. The motion is based on her events and is signed by her attorney and herself. She also attached other reports and an affidavit as supporting evidence for her representations.

The judge wrote in a footnote she is troubled by the trial judge's judgment in her award of custody because she was the judge who stopped Handy's visitation with his other daughter.

"Apparently, the domestic violence, Kevin's physical abuse towards A.H., and his anger issues in this cause do not reach the required level of 'irate behavior' to prevent Kevin's custody of A.H.," she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT