ILNews

Court splits on standard used to modify custody

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though the trial court departed from established statutory procedures by using the “best interests” standard to modify physical custody, the majority of Indiana Court of Appeals judges affirmed the lower court’s decision.

In Diane Werner v. Gregory Werner, No. 46A03-1008-DR-447, Diane Werner appealed the LaPorte Superior Senior Judge Steven King’s use of the best interests test to modify custody of the Werner’s two children. Judge King announced during the dissolution decree hearing and later at a custody hearing that his decision would be governed by the best interests test. Diane did not object either time. Diane relocated with the children 35 miles away to be closer to her job and was originally ordered primary physical custody of the children.

At the later custody hearing, Judge King found it would be in the best interests for Gregory to be the children’s primary physical custodian and awarded Diane parenting time.

The standard for modifying custody requires the modification to be in the best interests of the child and that there is a substantial change in one or more of the facts a court may consider under Indiana Code 31-17-2-8. The majority held that Diane waived her claim of error because she didn’t object when Judge King first announced at the dissolution decree and at the beginning of the custody hearing that he was going to use the best interests standard.  

Diane believed the trial court committed a fundamental error by interfering with her custodial relationship by not applying the modification standard as opposed to the best interests standard after an initial custody arrangement has been made. But she didn’t cite any authority for her argument that the use of the best interests standard in this case constitutes fundamental error, wrote Judge Terry Crone. Also, this case doesn’t deal with the termination of Diane’s right to establish a home and raise her children.

Judge Kirsch dissented, pointing out the case also involves the fundamental rights of the children to a stable home. Indiana courts are supposed to modify their custody decisions only upon a showing of a substantial change in one of the enumerated factors of I.C. 31-17-2-8.

“Because the affected interests of such decisions extend beyond the interests of the parents, parents cannot waive this standard,” he wrote. “The trial court committed clear error in ignoring the express statutory directive.”

Judge Crone wrote in response that the purpose of the trial court’s decision here was to allow enough time to gather sufficient information before entering a final custody determination “on less than complete information that could not be altered absent a substantial change in circumstances. … The trial court exercised extreme thoughtfulness and restraint in this regard and, we believe that the trial court's deviation from the general modification standard served the purpose of promoting true long term stability for these children. This is the cornerstone of our statutory law.”

The majority pointed out that they don’t condone the departure from the established statutory procedure and in fact, strongly discourage similar departures in the future. But they are unable to say a mistake has been made in this case.

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. 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.

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

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT