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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.