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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT