In re the Marriage of: A v. Sr. v. L v. (mem. dec.), 49A02-1609-DR-2217

Background

Mother and Father divorced in April 2014; decree gave them joint legal custody of two minor children and awarded Father primary physical custody.
Decree included school-district language and parenting-time allocation with midweek overnights; Father later filed multiple notices of intent to relocate and moved children between school districts.
By 2016 Son had graduated and moved out for college; Daughter (age 12–13) lived with Father, who worked frequent 24‑hour shifts and at times left Daughter alone overnight despite an agreement she stay with Mother when he worked.
Mother petitioned in June 2016 to modify custody (seeking primary physical custody of Daughter), alleging substantial changes including Son’s departure, Daughter’s fatigue from long drives, Daughter’s weight/health concerns, strained sibling relationships, and the children’s preference to live with Mother.
Trial court found a substantial change (Son no longer living with Father and Father leaving Daughter alone overnight), concluded modification was in Daughter’s best interests, and awarded Mother primary physical custody of Daughter. Father appealed.

Issues

Issue	Mother's Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion in modifying custody under Ind. Code § 31‑17‑2‑21	Mother: Substantial change (Son moved out; Father leaving 13‑yr‑old alone; weight/health and sibling relationship issues) and modification is in Daughter’s best interests	Father: Claim preclusion and insufficient evidence of substantial change or harm; relocation statute governs; single acts (isolated overnight leaves) insufficient	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; substantial change and best‑interest findings supported by evidence
Whether res judicata/claim preclusion bars Mother’s 2016 petition	Mother: New facts occurred after 2015 hearing (Son left home; additional conduct) so petition is not precluded	Father: Arguments were or could have been raised in 2015 petition, so claim preclusion applies	Rejected — different facts arose after prior proceeding; claim preclusion does not bar the 2016 petition
Whether relocation statute (IC § 31‑17‑2.2‑5) controls analysis	Mother: She brought an independent modification petition under § 31‑17‑2‑21, so general modification statute applies	Father: Relocation statute should govern and impose burden-shifting he claims Mother failed to overcome	Court: § 31‑17‑2‑21 governs here; relocation statute not the basis of trial court’s finding, but best‑interest factors overlap
Whether trial court erred in relying on Daughter’s weight/parenting practices	Mother: Evidence from pediatrician and lifestyle differences supported concerns about weight and diet	Father: Disputed weight finding and argued evidence insufficient; claimed courts should not reweigh credibility	Court: Evidence supported the weight/diet finding; appellate court will not reweigh credibility and affirmed the finding

Key Cases Cited

Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (custody modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion with deference to trial court)
Trost‑Steffen v. Steffen, 772 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court’s observational role in custody disputes merits deference)
Miller v. Carpenter, 965 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility in custody appeals)
Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory change removed requirement that existing arrangement be unreasonable; specific findings control issues they cover)
L.C. v. T.M., 996 N.E.2d 403 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Afolabi v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (res judicata requires that current issues could have been determined in prior action)
Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (overview of claim preclusion/res judicata requirements)