ILNews

Lawyers’ divorce battle divides COA on joint custody ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A lengthy divorce proceeding involving two Fort Wayne attorneys that raised numerous issues on appeal was mostly affirmed Tuesday, but a dissenting judge cautioned that joint custody was not in the interest of the of the feuding parents’ daughter.

Phillip J. and Tracy L. Troyer’s divorce involved more than four days of hearings in Allen Superior Court, and the final decree contained extensive findings including joint custody of the couple’s child and equal division of marital assets. The 35-page case is Phillip J. Troyer v. Tracy L. Troyer, 02A03-1207-DR-319.

The husband appealed and wife cross-appealed, and the Court of Appeals majority ruled as follows: “(1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing and dividing the marital estate; (2) the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in retroactively increasing Husband’s child support and healthcare expenses; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Husband’s petition for attorney fees; (4) the trial court did fail to rule on Husband’s request for Wife to reimburse him for her share of (the child’s) private school expenses; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the parties joint legal custody of K.T.; and (6) Husband’s appeal is neither frivolous nor in bad faith, and therefore Wife is not entitled to attorney fees pursuant to Appellate Rule 66(E).”

“We reverse the trial court’s retroactive modification of Husband’s child support and healthcare expenses and remand with instructions to amend the Final Decree accordingly,” Judge Terry Crone wrote in the majority opinion joined by Judge Elaine Brown. “On remand, the trial court shall also amend the Final Decree to include an order directing Wife to reimburse Husband for her share of K.T.’s private school expenses pursuant to the Provisional Order. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court.”

Judge James Kirsch sided with the majority in all aspects except for the custody ruling. Kirsch said the court was correct in ruling that the child’s best interests would be served by parents working together in a unified manner.

“There is nothing in the record before us, however, that reveals that the trial court’s statement was supported by the evidence or was a realistic expectation. Rather, the record repeatedly demonstrates that these parents cannot currently work together in such a manner,” Kirsch wrote.

“Here, the trial court: determined, and Husband agreed, that no parenting time should be currently allocated to Husband because that would ‘endanger’ (the child’s) physical health or significantly impair her emotional development; ‘seriously considered’ ordering parents to participate in classes for ‘high conflict parents’ and in individual and joint counseling; considered therapeutic parenting time; and appointed a Parenting Coordinator to provide support, assistance, and guidance. Given these very real and very serious concerns, it was error to order joint custody,” Kirsch wrote.

“Moreover, following the dissolution, Husband filed a grievance with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission against Wife ensuring that the adversarial nature of his relationship with the Wife will be continued,” he wrote in his two-page dissent. “I would reverse the trial court’s decision to grant parents joint legal custody.”

 

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