F.M., Mother v. N.B., Father, 979 N.E.2d 1036

F.M. (Mother) appeals an order modifying custody of C.B. to N.B. (Father).
The trial court granted Father’s petition to modify custody after Father’s counsel withdrew on the morning of a custody hearing.
Mother was represented by counsel initially; counsel withdrew just before the hearing, and Mother arrived late.
Court delayed hearing, allowed Mother to proceed without counsel, and ultimately modified custody.
The appellate court reversed, finding an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance and in permitting withdrawal of counsel, and remanded for a new hearing.
The court noted potential procedural rule violations regarding withdrawal of counsel and emphasized the importance of counsel at a crucial stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying a continuance	Mother asserts good cause existed for a continuance	Father contends no abuse; no prejudice shown	Yes; abuse of discretion; continuance should have been granted

Hess v. Hess, 679 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (denial of continuance where counsel withdrew prior to trial can be error if prejudicial)
Koors v. Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co., 530 N.E.2d 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (withdrawal of counsel may be error if party is deprived of counsel at a crucial stage)
Homehealth, Inc. v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 662 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (continuance abused when delay avoids prejudice and efficient administration not shown)
In re Riggin v. Rea Riggin & Sons, Inc., 738 N.E.2d 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (denial of continuance not upheld where substantial delay and attorney withdrawal affect trial)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (continuance decisions depend on circumstances; no mechanical rule)