964 N.E.2d 879
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mother and Father had a dating relationship from 2004 to 2008; they cohabited in Bloomington and their son C.S. was born February 13, 2006.
- Mother deployed to Iraq in 2007 after a period of pre-kindergarten schooling for C.S.; the relationship ended before her deployment.
- July 27, 2009, the parents entered into an agreed entry granting joint legal custody and equal physical custody of C.S.
- May 17, 2010, Mother moved to Fort Knox, Kentucky, and sought relocation with C.S.; Father requested primary physical custody.
- January 14, 2011, the trial court largely continued the prior order pending a custody evaluation; July 1, 2011, Father petitioned to modify custody and the court granted primary physical custody to Father for the 2011-12 school year; updated Barnhill custody evaluation recommended Father’s custody.
- Trial issues included substantial change in circumstances, Indiana Code provisions, and the updated custody evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification. | Mother argues readiness for kindergarten is not a substantial change. | Father contends age and educational needs justify modification. | Yes; substantial change supported by age/academic needs and best interests. |
| Whether the relocation-related factors were correctly considered under IC 31-17-2-21.3. | Mother says relocation due to active duty cannot be used to modify custody. | Father argues court could consider relocation factors; statute not prohibitive here. | Statute applied; relocation considerations supported modification. |
| Whether the updated custody evaluation was properly considered. | Mother argues the update added little value and should be ignored. | Court properly considered updated evaluation. | Court’s reliance on updated evaluation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (abuse of discretion standard for custody modifications; deference to trial court)
- Werner v. Werner, 946 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (deference in family law custody decisions; two-tier review)
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind.2009) (standard for reviewing custody decisions under Rule 52(A))
- Tompa v. Tompa, 867 N.E.2d 158 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (two-tier review for findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- Carr v. Pearman, 860 N.E.2d 863 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (waiver of issues not preserved on appeal)
- Brickley v. Brickley, 210 N.E.2d 850 (Ind.1965) (standard for reviewing custody decisions; historical context)