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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT