ILNews

Justices uphold modification of physical custody to father

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices granted transfer today to Mariea L. Best v. Russell C. Best, No. 06S05-1102-CV-73, and affirmed a special judge’s decision to grant a father physical custody of his daughter M.B. They held the trial court made the necessary findings to support the modification.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker upheld the trial court’s modification of physical custody of the daughter to her father, Russell Best. Russell and Mariea Best divorced in 2004 and had several disputes regarding custody, parenting time, and support since that time. Russell petitioned for a custody modification in 2008 after asserting Mariea didn’t comply with a 2007 court-approved agreement. Mariea responded with her own modification petition and Russell filed an emergency petition for contempt claiming Mariea denied him parenting time with their son. She also filed an emergency petition for temporary custody of their son. After a hearing, Mariea was found in contempt and ordered to return the son to Russell.

After a hearing by Special Judge Rebecca McClure, the court granted Russell’s petition to modify custody and awarded him sole legal and physical custody of their two children, denied Mariea’s petition for modification and contempt, and found her to be in contempt for not paying attorney fees.

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected Mariea’s claims that the trial court erred in refusing her request to order a custody evaluation and that the trial court didn’t properly modify legal custody of M.B. The appellate court reversed the finding of contempt but affirmed the trial court’s decision to reduce to judgment the unpaid attorney fee obligation. The majority of justices summarily affirmed these decisions by the Court of Appeals and only addressed Mariea’s challenge to the modification of her daughter’s physical custody.

The majority found Judge McClure made the necessary findings that there had been a substantial change in one or more of the statutory factors in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21 and that the modification of physical custody was in M.B.’s best interests.

They also declined to reweigh the evidence. Mariea argued that various items of evidence supported her position.

“In summary, sufficient findings were made to support the trial court's decision to modify the physical custody of M.B. And because the mother does not establish a complete absence of evidence supporting the trial court's denial of the mother's request for full physical custody of M.B., we decline to reverse the denial. We find no error in the trial court's decision to place M.B.'s primary physical custody with the father, subject to its specifications of parenting time, which are not challenged,” wrote Justice Dickson.

Justice Frank Sullivan dissented and would deny transfer, believing the decision of the Court of Appeals was correct. Justice Steven David did not participate.

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