Christen Hartsock v. Donald Fulkerson (mem. dec.), 62A05-1606-JP-1431

Background

Mother gave birth in May 2013; an agreed paternity order (Jan. 2014) awarded joint legal custody and primary physical custody to Mother; Father had alternating weekend parenting time and extended visitation weeks.
Mother lived primarily with her parents in Indianapolis; from April–Oct. 2015 she lived with a volatile partner (Asher) with episodes of physical and verbal aggression; Child was present during some incidents.
Mother filed a notice to relocate to Arizona in Aug. 2015 (would have moved with Child); the job fell through and she later withdrew the relocation before the custody hearing.
Father owns a home in Cannelton, had a stable employment history (recently changed jobs to spend more time with Child), long-term fiancé, and had set up childcare, preschool, physician, and extracurriculars for Child.
Father petitioned to modify custody (Sept. 2015); after a hearing (Apr. 2016) the trial court found a substantial change in circumstances, awarded Father primary physical custody while maintaining joint legal custody; Mother appeals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fulkerson)	Defendant's Argument (Hartsock)	Held
Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances to support custody modification	Mother’s unstable relationships, transient housing, questionable judgment about Child’s care (including allowing dangerous persons around Child), and overall instability justify change	Changes were isolated, temporary (short cohabitation ended nearly a year earlier), and not sufficiently harmful to Child to warrant uprooting custody	Court: Yes — substantial change shown (trial court’s findings supported by evidence)
Whether modification is in Child’s best interests	Father can provide a more stable home, consistent employment, engaged extended family, and concrete childcare/education plans	Mother retains bonding with Child; she has family caregivers and steady recent employment; Father’s schedule may limit direct caregiving	Court: Modification is in Child’s best interests (trial court considered statutory factors and credited Father’s stability)
Whether trial court properly applied statutory best-interest factors and Rule 52 findings	Trial court considered factors under I.C. §31-14-13-2 and entered special findings under T.R. 52(A)	Mother contends trial court overemphasized transient facts and improperly relied on withdrawn relocation petition	Court: Findings supported by record; deference to trial court’s credibility assessments; no clear error
Whether appellate court should reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment	Father urges deference to trial court; factual findings should stand	Mother asks reversal as evidence could support opposite conclusion and change was not substantial	Court: Will not reweigh; affirms trial court absent clear error

Key Cases Cited

Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial courts entitled to deference in custody determinations)
Werner v. Werner, 946 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (custody modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion)
K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (deference to trial judges in family law matters)
Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (reversal requires that evidence positively require appellant’s conclusion)
In re Paternity of D.T., 6 N.E.3d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing T.R. 52(A) findings)
In re Paternity of C.S., 964 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (custody modification standards)
Swonder v. Swonder, 642 N.E.2d 1376 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (noncustodial parent bears burden to show decisive change)
Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (change judged by effect on child in whole environment)
Joe v. Lebow, 670 N.E.2d 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (improvement in noncustodial parent’s lifestyle alone is not a basis for modification)
Simons v. Simons, 566 N.E.2d 551 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (isolated acts by custodial parent generally do not warrant modification)