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.














Conversations
0 Comments
Add Comment