H.B. v. J.R.
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2492
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Mother and Father dated ~4 years, never married; two children PR. (b. 2004) and AR. (b. 2005).
- Paternity established in 2007; Mother awarded sole custody; Father ordered to pay $150/week.
- Father filed to modify custody and support in Oct. 2009; hearing held Apr. 2010.
- Mother lived with Kevin Alcorn, who had a 2005 battery conviction and other concerns; Mother had a protective order against Chris Davis after an incident in fall 2009.
- Protective order details (phone smashed, threats, property damage) were not admitted into evidence at the hearing.
- Trial court modified custody to Father, parenting time per Indiana guidelines, and adjusted support arrearage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial notice of the protective order was proper. | Mother contends no notice or opportunity to be heard before notice. | Father contends Rule 201 allows notice and judicial notice at any stage. | Yes; proper under Rule 201, though notice should have been given. |
| Whether the custody modification was proper. | Mother argues no substantial change in circumstances justifying modification. | Father contends substantial change and best interests support modification. | Yes; court affirmed modification to Father based on substantial change and best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nienaber v. Nienaber, 787 N.E.2d 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (modification requires substantial change and best interests)
- Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for custody modifications; unreasonableness removed)
- Wallin v. Wallin, 668 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (modification standards—unreasonableness not required)
- Kanach v. Rogers, 742 N.E.2d 987 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (no mandatory explicit factor listings without request)
- Whatley v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (precedent on judicial notice in related cases)