Dustin Lee Jarrell v. Billie Jo Jarrell
5 N.E.3d 1186
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2011 and had joint legal custody with alternating weekly physical custody of son G.J.; no child support ordered.
- In May 2011 Mother moved from Vincennes, IN to Carterville, IL (≈180 miles). Parents continued the alternating-week schedule for ~2 years, meeting mid-way for exchanges.
- Father filed to modify custody in March 2013, arguing Mother’s relocation made the alternating schedule infeasible once G.J. entered kindergarten and that Mother failed to give statutory notice of relocation.
- Trial court held an in-camera interview of the child, heard evidence about home environments and educational care, and awarded Mother sole physical custody while retaining joint legal custody.
- Trial court found Mother’s home appropriate, that Mother had enrolled G.J. in preschool and pursued his education, and that Father had not enrolled him in educational programs during his custodial weeks.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have applied Relocation Statute factors (I.C. ch. 31-17-2.2) rather than Modification/Best-Interests factors | Court must apply Relocation Factors because Father’s motion sought modification in response to Mother’s move | Father acquiesced to the move by waiting ~2 years; therefore Relocation Statute does not control | Held: Mother’s move was effectively acquiesced to; Modification Statute (best-interests) applies |
| Whether a substantial change in circumstances was required and proven for modification under I.C. § 31-17-2-21 | Trial court erred by modifying custody without expressly finding a substantial change | Relocation and G.J.’s school enrollment and changed parent-child interactions constitute a substantial change | Held: Substantial change shown (age/school, new relationships, shift in child’s environment) supporting modification |
| Whether modification was in child’s best interests | Father: court overvalued Mother’s educational attentiveness, undervalued family ties in Vincennes, and deprived Father of meaningful parenting time | Mother: child’s educational stability, preschool success, home environment, and caregiver attentiveness favor Mother | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; findings support best-interests conclusion for Mother |
| Whether Father’s delay/ procedural failures affect available remedies | Father: Mother’s failure to file court notice of relocation means he could not be bound by 60-day objection rule | Mother: Father could have sought relief earlier or a return under statutes for defective notice; his delay implies acquiescence | Held: Both parents failed statutory requirements, but Father’s multi-year delay amounted to acquiescence and bars applying relocation protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (relocation factors incorporate best-interests factors and differ from modification standard)
- D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 2012) (appellate standard: defer to trial court factfinding and credibility assessments)
- Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (trial judge’s advantage in observing witnesses supports deference on custody determinations)
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 904 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (a substantial change to any single best-interests factor can justify modification)
- In re Paternity of B.D.D., 779 N.E.2d 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (out-of-state relocation not per se substantial; must assess effect on child)