Amanda Dillon v. Matthew Dillon
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 592
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Amanda (Mother) and Matthew Dillon (Father) divorced after a 2010 marriage; they share one daughter, Maci (born ~2008–2009).
- Father moved to Arizona and later to Riverside, California (and remarried) before Mother filed for divorce; Mother remained in Camby, Indiana.
- After a preliminary hearing the trial court granted Mother temporary custody and ordered Father to pay child support; the court later entered a dissolution decree but reserved final custody and gave each parent a custodial “test period.”
- The child alternated residence between Indiana (with Mother) and California (with Father) during the test period; a final custody hearing was held June 6, 2014.
- The trial court awarded Father primary physical custody, denied ongoing child support (entered a zero-support order) because Mother would incur significant travel expenses for visitation, and explained its findings on parenting, schooling, family support, and parental fitness.
- Mother appealed, arguing primarily that (1) Father failed to comply with the relocation-notice statute and (2) the trial court improperly relied on the child’s time in California when making the final custody decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father was required to file a notice of intent to move under the relocation statute | Father was a "relocating individual" and failed to file the required notice | Father moved before the divorce/custody proceedings began and thus the relocation statute did not apply | Court: No notice required; Father did not meet relocation statute circumstances and Mother waived the issue by not raising it below |
| Whether the preliminary joint-custody/test-period order was a "temporary order permitting relocation of the child" triggering I.C. § 31-17-2.2-6 (so final order could not be based solely on time during relocation) | The trial court impermissibly based the final custody decision primarily on the child’s time with Father in California | The preliminary joint-custody order was a neutral test period prior to any initial custody order and not a relocation order; court considered multiple factors | Court: The relocation provisions did not apply; even if they did, the court considered many factors beyond the California period |
| Whether the trial court properly considered custody factors (child’s adjustment, parent fitness, reasons for move, schooling, family ties) | Mother argued Father’s move lacked legitimate purpose and Daughter would be better served remaining in Indiana (school, local family access) | Father argued he moved for employment and remarriage; he actively cared for the child in California and facilitated education and activities | Court: Affirmed trial court’s factual findings and deference to weighing of factors; substantial evidence supported awarding Father primary custody |
| Whether the trial court properly handled travel/child-support consequences of cross-country custody | Mother argued travel burden and costs rendered the custody award improper | Trial court addressed travel costs by entering zero-support order so Mother would not pay support while incurring visitation travel expenses | Court: Trial court reasonably addressed travel/costs; zero-support order appropriate under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Trost-Steffen v. Steffen, 772 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial courts get deference in custody decisions because they observe parties and testimony)
- Speaker v. Speaker, 759 N.E.2d 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (same principle on deference/credibility in custody disputes)
- Truelove v. Truelove, 855 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for custody rulings)
- Farag v. DeLawter, 743 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (discussing predecessor relocation notice statute and its purpose to trigger custody-modification hearings)
- Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (absence of special findings: appellate review treats trial court decision as general judgment and affirms if sustainable on any theory supported by evidence)
- In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (issues not raised in trial court are waived on appeal)