H.H. v. A.A., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 45

Mother (HH) and Father (A.A.) are divorced; their child was born in 2006 and Father has had regular parenting time since infancy.
Mother remarried J.H.; J.H. later took employment and moved to Hawaii. Mother sought to relocate the child from Columbus, Indiana to Hawaii to join J.H. and open a clinic as a nurse practitioner.
Father objected; Mother filed two notices to relocate (first denied after hearing; second led to the instant hearing).
At the second evidentiary hearing Father exercised substantial parenting time (overnights, holidays, summers); the child is integrated into Father’s household, extended family, and private school, and speaks nightly with Father.
The trial court found Mother’s stated reasons were largely personal preference but also found relocation would substantially reduce Father’s parenting time, risk damaging the close parent–child relationship, and disrupt the child’s adjustment; it denied relocation and awarded custody to Father if Mother moved.
On appeal the court held Mother proved a good-faith, legitimate reason to relocate (to live with her husband) but the trial court did not clearly err in finding the relocation was not in the child’s best interests; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother met burden to show relocation was made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose	Mother: Relocation was to live with husband (J.H.), pursue greater professional autonomy in Hawaii, and improve family life; sufficient good faith/legitimate reason	Father: Move was personal preference; J.H. moved after denial, showing impropriety; prior denial undermines good faith	Court: Mother’s desire to live with her husband is a legitimate, good-faith reason; trial court erred in concluding otherwise
Whether relocation is in the child’s best interests (burden shifts to Father once good faith shown)	Mother: Child can maintain relationship by daily phone contact; Mother willing to bear travel costs; better family stability in Hawaii	Father: Distance would drastically reduce in-person parenting time; child is thriving in current school/community and has close bonds with Father, stepfamily, and grandparents; Mother previously interfered with parenting time	Court: Trial court’s findings (reduced visitation feasibility, disruption of relationships, child’s strong adjustment) are supported by evidence; relocation not in child’s best interests; denial affirmed

T.L. v. J.L., 950 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (two-tier review in relocation: good-faith/legitimate reason then child’s best interests)
M.S. v. C.S., 938 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing trial-court findings)
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (relocation statute burden allocation and deference to family-court factfinding)
Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (deference to trial judges in family-law credibility and best-interests determinations)
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. 1998) (appellate affirmance on any legal theory supported by findings)
In re the Paternity of X.A.S., 928 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (joining spouse’s military/service-based relocation can be legitimate reason)
Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (trial-court deference in child-related determinations)
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2004) (trier of fact may credit or disbelieve witness testimony)
Marshall v. State, 621 N.E.2d 308 (Ind. 1998) (same)
Nelson v. State, 525 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1988) (same)
Hubble v. State, 299 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. 1973) (same)