In Re: The Marriage of S.B. v. J.B. (mem. dec.)
64A03-1706-DR-1185
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Mother (S.B.) and Father (J.B.) divorced; one child (B.B.) born 2010. Divorce order incorporated a mediation agreement giving joint legal custody and an expectation that B.B. would reside with Mother; Father had significant parenting time and child support was calculated on substantial overnight time.
- Mother moved ~25 miles to North Judson in late 2014; Father lived and worked near Valparaiso where B.B. attended school (~45 minutes from Mother’s new residence).
- In December 2014 Mother and her father accused Father of neglect/sexual misconduct after Father posted a Play-Doh prank photo; DCS and law enforcement investigations were unsubstantiated. Mother nonetheless withheld parenting time and resisted court orders restoring it.
- Father filed to prevent relocation and to modify custody; trial court initially awarded physical custody to Father; this court in a prior appeal (S.B. I) remanded for application of specific statutory relocation and custody factors and a burden-shifting analysis.
- On remand the trial court made detailed findings applying Indiana Code §31-17-2.2-1(b) factors and the relocation burden-shifting framework and again denied Mother’s relocation and awarded Father sole physical custody; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.B.) | Defendant's Argument (J.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court comply with this Court’s remand to apply statutory relocation and custody factors? | Trial court failed to follow remand instructions and statutory requirements. | Trial court fully addressed required factors and burden-shifting as directed. | Court held the trial court complied with remand and applied required analysis. |
| Was Mother’s proposed relocation shown to be in good faith and for legitimate reasons, and if so, did Father rebut that relocation was not in the child’s best interests? | Mother claimed relocation was necessary for affordable housing and because her lease ended. | Father argued relocation would impair his relationship with B.B., increase hardship and travel, and shift daily caregiving to maternal grandfather. | Court held Mother met good-faith showing initially, but Father proved relocation was not in B.B.’s best interests; relocation denied. |
| Did the evidence support awarding Father sole physical custody? | Mother argued evidence did not support changing custody and that findings were insufficient. | Father pointed to Mother’s pattern of false allegations, refusal to comply with orders, and the best-interest factors favoring him. | Court held findings were supported by evidence and that awarding Father physical custody was not clearly erroneous. |
| Should appellate sanctions (attorney fees) be imposed for a frivolous appeal? | N/A (Mother is appellant). | Father requested sanctions for a vexatious/frivolous appeal. | Court declined sanctions, acknowledging the emotional stakes for a parent seeking custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Harris, 800 N.E.2d 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of review: review findings for support and conclusions of law de novo)