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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT