In Re: the Marriage of L.C. v. T.M.
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 496
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Parents divorced in 2007 and entered an agreed order awarding joint legal and joint physical custody of two children, with alternating weekdays and weekends between Carmel (Mother) and Mooresville (Father).
- Children attend Carmel schools; travel soccer (year-round for one child starting 2012) and Carmel-based activities increased logistical burdens and travel time between homes.
- Exchanges were centralized at a Sam’s Club parking lot; on school days Father drove children to the exchange and Mother (or her husband) took them to school.
- Mother petitioned in 2012 to modify physical custody to reduce travel, align with children’s wishes to live primarily with her, and provide greater routine and stability for the children.
- GAL, parenting coordinator, and coach reported the current arrangement was harming relationships, the children were distressed at Father’s home, and recommended changing to alternate weekends with Father and home-based exchanges with Father responsible for soccer commitments.
- Trial court denied modification, relying in part on the original shared-custody agreement and finding Mother had violated a prior order by enrolling a child in year‑round soccer; appellate court reversed and remanded for modification based on best interests and changed circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother proved a substantial change in circumstances to modify custody | The children’s travel, extracurricular needs, friendships, expressed wishes, and hostile environment at Father’s establish substantial change and best interests favor modification | The parties had an agreed joint physical custody arrangement; inconvenience from soccer and distance does not justify altering agreed schedule | Reversed: Mother proved substantial change under IC §31‑17‑2‑21 and modification is in children’s best interests |
| Whether children’s wishes and professional recommendations warranted changing the schedule | Children (preteens/teens) and GAL asked for alternate weekends; professionals warned continued schedule would damage Father–child relationship | Original custody agreement and shared parenting should be maintained despite inconvenience | Held for Mother: children’s wishes and professional testimony supported modification to preserve relationships and stability |
| Whether Mother’s enrollment of child in year‑round soccer precluded relief | Enrollment was not an egregious violation and isolated noncompliance should not bar modification | Trial court treated enrollment as violating a 2008 order and declined to reward noncompliance | Rejected as dispositive: appellate court held isolated breach should not prevent modification when welfare of children supports change |
| Standard of review and deference to trial court in custody cases | Errors of law and failure to account for changed circumstances warrant reversal | Trial court findings entitled to deference because judge saw witnesses | Appellate court acknowledged deference but found prima facie error given unrefuted evidence favoring modification |
Key Cases Cited
- D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 2012) (discussing appellate deference to trial courts in custody matters)
- Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (explaining deference due to trial judges’ firsthand observations in family cases)
- Carmichael v. Siegel, 754 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (noting continuity and stability are important factors in custody determinations)