ILNews

Judges rule on custody issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When modifying custody, the change in circumstances required by Indiana Code doesn't need to be so decisive in nature as to make the change necessary for the child's welfare, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The holding comes in In re the marriage of: Julie C. v. Andrew C., No. 49A05-0909-CV-523, in which Julie C. argued the trial court abused its discretion by making a de facto modification to joint physical custody and declining to modify joint legal custody to sole legal custody to her; by declining to find Andrew in contempt for failing to pay support; and for not awarding her attorney fees.

Julie has primary physical custody of their two children with Andrew having parenting time on certain days of the week and certain weekends. Andrew later filed a motion to modify his parenting time, seeking to spend more time with his kids. He wanted them to stay with him Monday through Wednesday because that's when his fiancee had custody of her children and they wanted the children to spend time together. Julie then filed for modification of legal custody and back child support because Andrew owed $560.

The trial court found there was a substantial change under Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21 to warrant modifying parenting time. It awarded Andrew the time he requested and that he pay $10 a week to satisfy his arrearage. The trial court didn't find him in contempt.

The trial court ordered a de facto modification of custody to joint physical custody, the appellate court concluded. Under I.C. 31-17-2-21, a trial court can't modify a custody order unless it's in the best interest of the child and there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors a court may consider under I.C. Section 31-17-2-8. There were additional changes beyond the father's impending marriage - the oldest child wanted to spend more time with his father, and Andrew is attempting to blend his present and future family.

The Court of Appeals also rejected Julie's claim that the change in circumstances must be so decisive in nature to make the change in custody necessary for the child's welfare.

"As the decisive-in-nature language is intertwined with the requirement of unreasonableness, and unreasonableness is no longer required in light of the 1994 amendment, the change in circumstances required by Section 31-17-2-21 need not be so decisive in nature as to make a change in custody necessary for the welfare of the child," wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

The judges used the factors listed in I.C. Section 31-17-2-15 to determine the trial court didn't abuse its discretion by not awarding Julie sole legal custody. The trial court is in the best position to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, noted Judge Vaidik.

The appellate court also affirmed the decision by the trial court not to find Andrew in contempt on owed child support, affirmed the amount of child support it ordered he pay, and affirmed the decision to not award Julie attorney fees.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT