David Chamberlin v. Leslie Chamberlin (mem. dec.)
49A02-1607-DR-1670
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Parents (David — Father, Leslie — Mother) married in 2008; three minor sons born 2009, 2012, 2014. Father worked long hours; Mother was primary caregiver.
- Marital relationship deteriorated with mutual mental-health diagnoses; incidents of arguments and occasional physical altercations led Mother to leave the marital home with the children in December 2014 and relocate to Colorado, obtaining a protective order there.
- Father filed for legal separation in Indiana (Dec. 2014); Mother converted to dissolution and later obtained an Indiana protective order finding she was placed in fear by Father (January 2015). Preliminary orders limited Father’s in-person contact; Father’s court-ordered Colorado visitation was largely unused.
- Custody evaluator (Dr. Kevin Byrd) recommended Mother for physical custody: children had improved emotionally and developmentally in Colorado and were receiving services there; Mother demonstrated more realistic parenting expectations than Father.
- Trial court (after three-day final hearing) awarded Mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody, finding children had stronger attachments to Mother, had adjusted in Colorado, and benefited from separation; Father appealed claiming trial-court error.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court applied a presumption favoring Mother | Trial court’s orders and rulings evidence an improper presumption awarding custody to Mother | Court correctly applied best-interests factors; no presumption shown | No presumption; trial court presumed to apply law correctly and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court improperly considered children’s adjustment after Mother’s relocation | Court should not consider post-relocation improvements because relocation was wrongful and aimed to damage Father’s relationship | Court may consider current best-interests evidence, including children’s adjustment and treatments obtained in Colorado | Trial court properly considered post-relocation factors; best-interests analysis governs, not punishment of parent |
| Whether findings that Mother did not intend to damage Father’s relationship are unsupported | Mother’s post-move conduct (limited communication, alleged denigration) shows intent to harm Father’s relationship with children | Mother left for safety; some communication lapses were misunderstandings of protective-order terms; court ordered remedies | Finding supported by record; Father’s claims amount to reweighing evidence, which appellate court will not do |
| Whether Relocation Statutes (I.C. ch. 31-17-2.2) were violated and require reversal | Mother should have complied with relocation-notice statutes once she remained in Colorado | Mother did not meet relocating-individual definition when she left; court did not apply relocation statute and Father failed to timely raise it below | Relocation statutes were inapplicable or not litigated below; Father invited any error by failing to raise issue; court did not err in custody award |
Key Cases Cited
- Masters v. Masters, 43 N.E.3d 570 (Ind. 2015) (two-tiered review for T.R. 52(A) findings)
- Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (deference to trial judges in family-law matters given credibility determinations)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (standard for clearly erroneous findings)
- Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. 2016) (preference for trial-court discretion in family law)
- Sabo v. Sabo, 858 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (custody decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Allen v. Proksch, 832 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (custody cannot be changed to punish a parent; child’s welfare controls)
- Dillon v. Dillon, 42 N.E.3d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing trial approaches to parenting-time transition periods)