ILNews

Judge ‘troubled’ by delays in relocation case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday upheld a mother’s decision to relocate from Indiana to Georgia with her daughter before a court hearing was held on the matter. But one judge on the panel found the court’s reliance on the time the mother and child lived in Georgia to support its decision “makes a mockery” of the relocation statute.

Starr Weather and Ryan Gold have a daughter born in August 2008. Gold is married with two other children and lives in Indianapolis. Weather worked as a nurse in Terre Haute. The two had a contentious relationship, including Weather denying Gold visitation for more than a year. She decided to relocate to Atlanta, Ga., to be close to her mother and two siblings, whom lived in Terre Haute prior to moving to Georgia.

Weather did not provide the required 90-day notice of her intent to move prior to her relocation date of July 1, 2011, and she moved prior to obtaining court approval. In October 2012, the court found that Weather satisfied her burden of proving the move was in good faith and for a legitimate purpose. In October 2013, the court issued its final order denying Gold’s objection to the relocation and his motion to modify physical custody. The two were awarded joint legal custody of the child.

In Ryan Gold v. Starr Weather, 49A02-1311-JP-995, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court, with Judge Patricia Riley pointing to the care that mother’s immediate family provided for the child and her close bond with those family members. Weather also relocated to Georgia for employment reasons.

Gold argued that custody should be modified because of Weather’s multiple attempts to thwart parenting time, but the judges declined to disturb the trial court’s decision.

The majority opinion noted by the time of the final hearing, the child had lived in Georgia for two years. This was an issue that caused Judge Margret Robb to concur in result.

“I believe Mother’s move in violation of the terms of the relocation statute alone justifies closer scrutiny of her reasons for the move. And Mother’s hasty move coupled with the court’s reliance – however small – on the time she and the Child have lived 800 miles away from Father as support for its decision despite acknowledging her disregard makes a mockery of the statute,” Robb wrote.

“If a parent can ignore the requirements of the law, move the child without court approval, and then claim ‘primary caregiving’ and ‘bonding’ as a justification for staying with that parent being in the child’s best interest—and moreover, if the court can acknowledge all of this and yet in effect reward the parent by approving what they have already done—then the relocation statute has no meaning and no teeth.”

She said her concurrence might have been a dissent if Gold had been more aggressive in pursuing his rights and less complicit in the lengthy delay in this case. Robb also found the two-year delay from the notice of intent to move and when the final order was issued to be “unconscionable” on the part of both the parties and the court.  

 

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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT