Dustin Lee Jarrell v. Billie Jo Jarrell - 3/4/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  March 4, 2014 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 42A01-1308-DR-381. This appeal involves the review of an Order modifying a child custody order in favor of Mother, the Appellee, following her relocation from Vincennes, Indiana to Carterville, Illinois.  Father, the Appellant, presents this court with issues concerning the obligations of a non-relocating parent to timely object to a relocation where the relocating parent has failed to provide notice pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1(a) and Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-3, as well as issues regarding the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether to modify a custody order.  Specifically, Father asserts that the trial court erred by:

•considering only the best interests of the child rather than the factors specifically enumerated for relocation cases under Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1(b);
•failing to find there had been a substantial change to at least one of the factors used in ascertaining the child’s best interests during the initial custody determination pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-17-2-21; and
•concluding that it was in the child’s best interests to award physical custody to Mother.

Back to Events
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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT